Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110

Wait, there's more! > When passing a closure with a single underscore argument ({ _ in ...}) to a > function expecting multiple arguments, the compiler may error after migration > with: > > error: cannot convert value of type '(_) -> ()' to expected argument > type > (32301091) >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Meta] WWDC week

Great for me! François Lamboley > On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:27 PM, David Sweeris wrote: > > +1, feels like it matches swift's direction > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 5, 2017, at 20:53, Brent Royal-Gordon wrote: > >>> On May 30, 2017, at 10:26

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110

http://adcdownload.apple.com/WWDC_2017/Xcode_9_beta/Xcode_9_beta_Release_Notes.pdf > The migrator does not properly distinquish between single-tuple and > multiple-argument function types as described in SE–0110, causing additional > mismatched type errors with the closure types that are passed

Re: [swift-evolution] [Meta] WWDC week

+1, feels like it matches swift's direction Sent from my iPhone On Jun 5, 2017, at 20:53, Brent Royal-Gordon wrote: >> On May 30, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon >> wrote: >> >> I'm going to be in San Jose during WWDC next week, and I'm

Re: [swift-evolution] [Meta] WWDC week

 On 5 Jun 2017, at 20:53, Brent Royal-Gordon wrote: >> On May 30, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon >> wrote: >> >> I'm going to be in San Jose during WWDC next week, and I'm assuming I won't >> be the only one. Are there any

Re: [swift-evolution] [Meta] WWDC week

> On May 30, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon > wrote: > > I'm going to be in San Jose during WWDC next week, and I'm assuming I won't > be the only one. Are there any swift-evolution meetings or events planned? > Personally, I'd love to put some faces to names

[swift-evolution] Swift 4 Package Manager Update

Hello Swift Package Manager community, I'd like to give you an update on the state of SwiftPM in Swift 4. We've implemented a number of evolution proposal this Spring: • SE-0152 [ https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0152-package-manager-tools-version.md ] introduced

Re: [swift-evolution] Why is the status of SE-0110 "implemented"?

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Jens Persson via swift-evolution > wrote: > So the bug in the reflective type system needs to be fixed before SE-0110 can > actually be implemented (so that the statements in its title and text are > true when compared to the actual

Re: [swift-evolution] [Meta] WWDC week

Hello! I'll be there too, would be happy to meet as well! François > On Jun 4, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Step Christopher via swift-evolution > wrote: > > I would love to meet up as well. Let's try to find a time and place. > > - Step > >> On May 31, 2017, at 2:11 PM,

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110

Yes, double parenthesis for tuple argument destructuring in closure was discussed in this thread, and I feel it is one of the best options. But the main question I can't find the clear answer for, what will be with function/closure types in Swift 4. IMO *this* is the main question, not the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Factory Initializers

Any chance at a 4.1 or a 4.2 round this year? -- E > On Jun 5, 2017, at 1:16 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > I hope so! We'll have to wait a bit for the core team to outline Swift 5 > priorities. > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 00:24 Pranshu Goyal

[swift-evolution] Indexing (static-size) arrays: offsets or tables?

I looked up a history of programming languages on Wikipedia, and looked up a bunch of them that I heard of to see how they handle array indexing. 1. A lot of them do it the way C does it: you specify a positive integer at the spot where you give a dimension. Then at dereference-time, you insert

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > The motivation section is not at all about any "type checker problem". > It's about a postulate that has been proven horribly source-breaking, and > counter-productive. The type safety argument

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110

> Le 4 juin 2017 à 19:16, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > a écrit : > > One way to split the difference here is to eliminate the splatting behavior, > but keep the destructuring (irrefutable pattern matching) behavior as well. > In these cases, just require an

Re: [swift-evolution] Why is the status of SE-0110 "implemented"?

So the bug in the reflective type system needs to be fixed before SE-0110 can actually be implemented (so that the statements in its title and text are true when compared to the actual behavior of the current Swift 4 compiler), And yet: 1. The status of SE-0110 is "Implemented" 2. These

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Factory Initializers

I hope so! We'll have to wait a bit for the core team to outline Swift 5 priorities. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 00:24 Pranshu Goyal wrote: > Any hopes for it in future? > > On 4 June 2017 at 20:40, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > >> No. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110

2017-06-05 2:16 GMT+09:00 Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org>: > > On Jun 1, 2017, at 3:06 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 1, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Pavol Vaskovic wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:52