Since you mentioned not finding documentation, here's the new section in "The
Swift Programming Language":
Associated Types with a Generic Where Clause
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Generics.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP400140
Happy New Year!
To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some
time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some
rough notes from the discussion this week.
These are informal comments, intended to guide the proposals in directions tha
> On Dec 7, 2016, at 10:07 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of SE-0147 "Move UnsafeMutablePointer.initialize(from:) to
> UnsafeMutableBufferPointer" begins now and runs through December 12, 2016.
> The proposal is available here:
>
> https://github.com/appl
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Toni Suter via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> In Swift 3, I can declare a postfix operator that starts with a ? or a !, but
> as far as I can tell, there's no way to actually use such an operator:
>
> I think it would probably be best to disallow postfix operators
When you file the bug, can you post the Jira number? The grammar in TSPL will
also need to be changed to accept three version components.
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Statements.html#//apple_ref/swift/grammar/swift-version
> Dots in operators
>
> The current requirements for dots in operator names are:
>
> If an operator doesn’t begin with a dot, it can’t contain a dot elsewhere.
> This proposal changes the rule to:
>
> Dots may only appear in operators in runs of two or more.
> Under the revised rule, ..< and ...
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Alex Martini via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:50 AM, David Goodine via swift-evolution
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I don’t know if t
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:50 AM, David Goodine via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I don’t know if this is really an ‘evolution’ topic per se, and I’m not on
> Swift Dev, but thought someone here could shed some light on this.
>
> Often when developing code, if I need create mode swi
> On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Hooman Mehr via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Daniel Duan via swift-evolution
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Agree with Robert here. I'd rather be able to use it as part of operators.
>> Currently the character se
A comma is already allowed after the last element in an array or dictionary
literal:
Welcome to Apple Swift version 2.2 (swiftlang-703.0.18.1 clang-703.0.29). Type
:help for assistance.
1> let x = [1, 2, 3,]
x: [Int] = 3 values {
[0] = 1
[1] = 2
[2] = 3
}
2> let y = [1: "one", 2: "two"
To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some
time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some
rough notes from the yesterday's discussion.
These are informal comments, intended to guide the proposals in directions that
draw constru
To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some
time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some
rough notes from the yesterday's discussion.
These are informal comments, intended to guide the proposals in directions that
draw constru
> On Mar 24, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Russ Bishop wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Alex Martini via swift-evolution
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote
>> Allow Swift types to provide custom Objective-C representations
>>
>> http
To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some
time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some
rough notes from the yesterday's discussion.
(This week, I want to point out that my notes for PR 219, the first discussion
topic, are es
To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some
time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some
rough notes from the yesterday's discussion.
These are informal comments, intended to guide the proposals in directions that
draw constru
The reference for build configuration statements[1] has a list of platforms and
operating systems. If that list is out of date, it's a documentation bug — so
thanks for pointing that out!
TSPL: Build configuration statements is missing
Windows, FreeBSD, powerpc64, and powerpc64le
If you want
16 matches
Mail list logo