Re: [swift-evolution] Remove nil and NilLiteralConvertible

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Brandon Knope via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Is it really an implementation detail? It is very leaky if it is one because > it is highly exposed to everyone. It’s only as leaky as you want it to be. We have two shipping apps with

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0089: Replace protocol<P1, P2> syntax with Any<P1, P2>

on Sun Jun 12 2016, L Mihalkovic wrote: > My understanding is that dave is the type system designer. That would be a misunderstanding. I am a contributor, but other people take the lead on the type system. -- Dave ___ swift-evolution mailing list

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0089: Replace protocol<P1, P2> syntax with Any<P1, P2>

on Fri Jun 10 2016, Thorsten Seitz wrote: >> Am 09.06.2016 um 19:50 schrieb Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution >> : >> >> >>> Am 09.06.2016 um 18:49 schrieb Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>> : >>> > >>> >>> on Wed Jun 08 2016,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

> > First, notice how your comment is related to the `where` clause but is > actually sitting on top of the loop itself. Second, one of these two tests > visits every element while the other doesn't, and it took me three reads > before I could see that because I literally couldn't find the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

What's the behavior currently with `if case let (foo?, bar?, baz?)...`? On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 19:53 plx via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > This proposal should specify if the tuple is evaluated “eagerly” or as an > “early-exit”. > > That is, if we write `if let

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

This proposal should specify if the tuple is evaluated “eagerly” or as an “early-exit”. That is, if we write `if let (foo,bar,baz) = (_foo(), _bar(), _baz())`, and _bar() -> nil, will `_baz()` have been evaluated, or not? I’d use this feature either way, but the proposal should have a clear

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

> It takes reaching the last section of the proposal to understand that there > is not real issue, that it does not add any functionality, and that it > basically amount to stylistic preference for something. It might be more > informative to start with that rather than leave it until the end.

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, L. Mihalkovic wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Thorsten Seitz wrote: > > > Am 12.06.2016 um 12:02 schrieb L Mihalkovic >: > > > On Jun 11, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Xiaodi Wu

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Thorsten Seitz wrote: > > Am 12.06.2016 um 00:16 schrieb Xiaodi Wu : > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Thorsten Seitz > wrote: > >> >> >> Am 11.06.2016 um 23:52 schrieb Xiaodi Wu

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:10 AM, plx via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:30 PM, let var go wrote: > >> I respect that

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

Right. If associated type has the same value for both conformances, then everything should be fine. Fixed that example. - Anton 2016-06-13 0:15 GMT+03:00 Dan Appel : > >if our protocol conforms to a protocol with associated type requirements, > then we still can't conform

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

+1 Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 12, 2016, at 08:01, Антон Жилин via swift-evolution > wrote: > > I've prepared a proper draft: > > https://github.com/Anton3/swift-evolution/blob/generic-protocols/proposals/-generic-protocols.md > > - Anton > > 2016-06-10

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

>if our protocol conforms to a protocol with associated type requirements, then we still can't conform to our protocol multiple times. I don't think so: protocol A { associatedtype TypeA } protocol B: A { func convert(from: TypeB) -> TypeA } struct C: A { typealias TypeA =

[swift-evolution] updated documentation with each snapshot?

Sure would be nice if each snapshot would include updated language and library documentation. ___ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

Copy of link to the proposal: https://github.com/Anton3/swift-evolution/blob/generic-protocols/proposals/-generic-protocols.md Inline: 2016-06-12 21:51 GMT+03:00 Dan Appel : > Awesome that you guys started this! I've been meaning to pitch it for a > while. Couple

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

Awesome that you guys started this! I've been meaning to pitch it for a while. Couple notes: - in the motivation, you're conforming to SequenceType while defining a From protocol (just a typo I think) - the proposal should mention Brent's comments since it doesn't have a rebuttal to the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

It takes reaching the last section of the proposal to understand that there is not real issue, that it does not add any functionality, and that it basically amount to stylistic preference for something. It might be more informative to start with that rather than leave it until the end. > On

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

Yes, everything that works on generic types should work for generic protocols. I'll add that. What won't work is declaring that MyComparable : Comparable iff T == Self. The same won't work for current non-generic protocols as well. Although that feature is highly requested, it is discussed in

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Антон Жилин wrote: > I've prepared a proper draft: > > > https://github.com/Anton3/swift-evolution/blob/generic-protocols/proposals/-generic-protocols.md > > When you propose this: Syntax in protocol extensions protocol

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > When I suggested this syntax in the acceptance thread for SE-0099, Chris > said it should be written up as a proposal. I'm sure this will get lost in > the WWDC shuffle, but here goes. >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

>> guard let (a, b, c) = (opt1, opt2, opt3) else { ... } > > You mention `guard case` in the motivation, but I think for the uninitiated > reader it would be fair to point out that the following example already works > equivalently, with only a few extra characters: > > guard case let (a?, b?,

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0089: Replace protocol<P1, P2> syntax with Any<P1, P2>

> Am 12.06.2016 um 17:40 schrieb L Mihalkovic : > >> >> On Jun 12, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Thorsten Seitz > > wrote: >> >>> >>> Am 12.06.2016 um 09:21 schrieb L. Mihalkovic >>

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0089: Replace protocol<P1, P2> syntax with Any<P1, P2>

> On Jun 12, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Thorsten Seitz wrote: > >> >> Am 12.06.2016 um 09:21 schrieb L. Mihalkovic > >: >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> (From mobile) >> On Jun 11, 2016, at 11:43 PM, Thorsten Seitz

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0089: Replace protocol<P1, P2> syntax with Any<P1, P2>

> On Jun 12, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Thorsten Seitz wrote: > > >> Am 12.06.2016 um 09:21 schrieb L. Mihalkovic : >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> (From mobile) >> On Jun 11, 2016, at 11:43 PM, Thorsten Seitz wrote: >> >>> >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

> On Jun 12, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Thorsten Seitz wrote: > > >>> Am 12.06.2016 um 12:02 schrieb L Mihalkovic : >>> >>> >>> On Jun 11, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:37 PM,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

Looks good to me! -Thorsten > Am 12.06.2016 um 15:01 schrieb Антон Жилин via swift-evolution > : > > I've prepared a proper draft: > > https://github.com/Anton3/swift-evolution/blob/generic-protocols/proposals/-generic-protocols.md > >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

> Am 12.06.2016 um 00:16 schrieb Xiaodi Wu : > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Thorsten Seitz > wrote: > > > Am 11.06.2016 um 23:52 schrieb Xiaodi Wu >: > >> On Sat,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

> Am 12.06.2016 um 12:02 schrieb L Mihalkovic : > > >> On Jun 11, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Thorsten Seitz >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Allow nested protocol declarations

What is the status for this idea? I can’t find the proposal for this. :( --  Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail ___ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

Well now you have me intrigued. I must read more about Linq now Brandon Sent from my iPad > On Jun 12, 2016, at 6:02 AM, L Mihalkovic via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Jun 11, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Allow multiple conformances to the same protocol

I've prepared a proper draft: https://github.com/Anton3/swift-evolution/blob/generic-protocols/proposals/-generic-protocols.md - Anton 2016-06-10 17:18 GMT+03:00 Brent Royal-Gordon : > > FWIW they're marked as 'unlikely' here: >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:30 PM, let var go > wrote: > I respect that anti-goal, but I think being over-rigid about limiting > developers'

Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

> On 12 Jun 2016, at 14:46, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution > wrote: > > guard let (a, b, c) = (opt1, opt2, opt3) else { ... } You mention `guard case` in the motivation, but I think for the uninitiated reader it would be fair to point out that the following

[swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding

When I suggested this syntax in the acceptance thread for SE-0099, Chris said it should be written up as a proposal. I'm sure this will get lost in the WWDC shuffle, but here goes. Tuple-Based Compound Optional Binding Proposal: TBD Author: Brent Royal-Gordon

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Add support for compile-time function execution

> On 12 Jun 2016, at 09:47, L Mihalkovic via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Jun 12, 2016, at 6:05 AM, Alexander Momchilov >> > wrote: >> >> Aren't macros totally different? >> >> Anyways,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] Type hierarchy translation consistency

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution wrote: > Just looked up the current implementation of this: > > extension String { > /// The index type for subscripting a string. > public typealias Index = CharacterView.Index > > /// A type

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] Type hierarchy translation consistency

Just looked up the current implementation of this: extension String { /// The index type for subscripting a string. public typealias Index = CharacterView.Index /// A type used to represent the number of steps between two `String.Index` /// values, where one value is reachable from the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Retiring `where` from for-in loops

> On Jun 11, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Thorsten Seitz > wrote: > > > Am 11.06.2016 um 22:29 schrieb L. Mihalkovic

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Add support for compile-time function execution

> On Jun 12, 2016, at 6:05 AM, Alexander Momchilov > wrote: > > Aren't macros totally different? > > Anyways, weren't macros rejected? I thought Swift was trying to avoid having > the hefty reliance of preprocessor macros that C did. Sorry I was not referring

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0089: Replace protocol<P1, P2> syntax with Any<P1, P2>

Regards (From mobile) > On Jun 11, 2016, at 11:43 PM, Thorsten Seitz wrote: > > > >> Am 11.06.2016 um 15:08 schrieb L. Mihalkovic : >> >> >>> On Jun 11, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Thorsten Seitz wrote: >>> >>> Am

[swift-evolution] Nil coalescing operator precedence

Nil coalescing operator has very low precedence and it's very easy to forget the parentheses. It's tempting to write something like this: let result = v1 ?? 0 + v2 ?? 0 Which will resolve to let result = v1 ?? (0 + v2 ?? 0) An example of incorrect code from real project which went unnoticed