Re: [swift-evolution] Allow commits or branches in the Swift Package Manager instead of Version

I’m going to shamelessly bump this, because this is a pretty huge pain point for me, and I think others who are trying to build and test with Swift 3. > On May 14, 2016, at 3:12 PM, Tyler Fleming Cloutier via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Has there been any discussion on all

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 16, 2016, at 2:16 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote: > > > on Mon May 16 2016, Tyler Fleming Cloutier wrote: > Super interesting talk! But consider: isn't a single value type able to represent *multiple* ethereal types? >>> >>> “ethereal?” Does he really use that term?

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 16, 2016, at 12:46 AM, L. Mihalkovic > wrote: > > > > Regards > (From mobile) > > On May 16, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Tyler Fleming Cloutier via swift-evolution > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > >> >>> On May 15

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 15, 2016, at 11:39 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: > > > on Sun May 15 2016, Tyler Fleming Cloutier wrote: > >>On May 15, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >>on Mon May 09 2016, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> >>On May 8, 2016, at 1:51 AM,

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 15, 2016, at 11:17 PM, Tyler Fleming Cloutier via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> >> On May 15, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> >> on Mon May 09 2016, Matthew J

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 15, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: > > > on Mon May 09 2016, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >>> On May 8, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote: >>> >>> >>> on Sat May 07 2016, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >> On M

[swift-evolution] Allow commits or branches in the Swift Package Manager instead of Version

Has there been any discussion on allowing direct specification of commits or branches for the Swift Package Manager on the list? Currently it only supports semantic versioning tags, which makes for a tricky development process for developers adding Swift 3 support to their packages. For example

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 7, 2016, at 10:39 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: > > > on Sat May 07 2016, Tyler Fleming Cloutier > wrote: > >>> On May 7, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: >>> >>> >>> on Fri May 06 2016, Tyler Fleming Cloutier wrote: >>> >> On May 6, 2

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 7, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: > > > on Fri May 06 2016, Tyler Fleming Cloutier wrote: > >>On May 6, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >>on Fri May 06 2016, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> >>On May 6, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Dave

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 4, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: > > > on Wed May 04 2016, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >>> On May 4, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> on Wed May 04 2016, Adrian Zubarev wro

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 5, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: > > > on Thu May 05 2016, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >>On May 5, 2016, at 4:59 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: >> >>on Wed May 04 2016, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> >>On May

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 6, 2016, at 9:19 PM, Tyler Fleming Cloutier via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> >> On May 6, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> >> on Fri May 06 2016, Matthew J

Re: [swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

> On May 6, 2016, at 6:54 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: > > > on Fri May 06 2016, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >>On May 6, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >>on Thu May 05 2016, Matthew Johnson wr

Re: [swift-evolution] multi-line string literals.

Comments inline. > On May 4, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon wrote: > They separate indentation from the string's contents. Traditional multiline > strings usually include all of the content between the start and end > delimiters, including leading whitespace. This means that it's usually

Re: [swift-evolution] multi-line string literals.

> On Apr 30, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Tyler Fleming Cloutier via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Apr 28, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >>> Awesome. Some specific sug

Re: [swift-evolution] multi-line string literals.

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> Awesome. Some specific suggestions below, but feel free to iterate in a >> pull request if you prefer that. > > I've adopted these suggestions in some form, though I also ended up rewriting > the explanation

Re: [swift-evolution] multi-line string literals.

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> Awesome. Some specific suggestions below, but feel free to iterate in a >> pull request if you prefer that. > > I've adopted these suggestions in some form, though I also ended up rewriting > the explanation

Re: [swift-evolution] mutating/non-mutating suggestion from a Rubyist

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:34 AM, Pyry Jahkola wrote: > > Good that you brought the topic of "fluent" interfaces up. I don't see any > problem with explicit value type mutation and method chaining because fluent > interfaces are constrained to reference types by the language. Details below: > >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0066: Standardize function type argument syntax to require parentheses

I’m going to play Devil’s advocate here and ask why not just pull out the parens for function types? Int, Int -> Int // Two argument function type (Int, Int) -> Int // Single tuple argument function type vs (Int, Int) -> Int // Two argument function type ((Int, Int)) -> Int // Single tuple argu

Re: [swift-evolution] [Idea] Add forced conversion for Error catching pattern matching

r Fleming Cloutier via swift-evolution > a écrit : >> >> Would it be wise to allow force conversion for the cases in which the >> developer believes the match is exhaustive? ie >> >> do { >>let action = chooseAction(game) >>game = try ga

Re: [swift-evolution] [Idea] Add forced conversion for Error catching pattern matching

These I think add noise in terms of someone reading the code. Now not only do they need to know Swift’s error handling mechanism, but also they have to be familiar with my custom wrapper around it. > On Mar 21, 2016, at 8:26 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon > wrote: > >> do { >>let action = choose

[swift-evolution] [Idea] Add forced conversion for Error catching pattern matching

I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion a while back about adding typed error declarations for methods that throw for the purpose of exhaustive pattern matching on errors. There were interesting arguments on either side, and I think that the result was to maintain the status quo. Ther

Re: [swift-evolution] use standard syntax instead of "do" and "repeat"

> On Jan 3, 2016, at 7:38 PM, Matthew Johnson <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 3, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Tyler Fleming Cloutier via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> Please see inline comm

Re: [swift-evolution] use standard syntax instead of "do" and "repeat"

Please see inline comments. > On Jan 3, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Tyler Fleming Cloutier via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Indeed both are reasonable but perhaps suboptimal. Consider the following > potential changes. > > > // Assume this code is included for th

Re: [swift-evolution] use standard syntax instead of "do" and "repeat"

Indeed both are reasonable but perhaps suboptimal. Consider the following potential changes. // Assume this code is included for the below examples. func myThrowingFunc() throws -> String { if drand48() < 0.5 { throw NSError(domain: "", code: 0, userInfo: nil) } return "" } l

Re: [swift-evolution] Proposal Sketch: simplify optional unwrapping syntax

Whoops, errant button tap. I've always thought that, if let foo = foo? { } makes more sense than if let foo = foo { } as the ? indicates that you are unwrapping the optional and then assigning it to the new variable. The current syntax must seem incomprehensible/redundant to those new t

Re: [swift-evolution] Run Swift code at compile time

Woah, Alejandro, thanks for posting this! That talk was super interesting, particularly exciting at 49:48 . That was just plan cool. Jonathan Blow is quite the orthogonal thinker. +1 for this, or at least to evaluate how it would fit into the language! Tyl