> On Feb 6, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> I think I agree with Rick. I see no benefit to making it look like this line
> is Swift when it's really not parsed as such. Like a doctype in HTML or a
> shebang line in Python, a special comment is lightweight, familia
I think I agree with Rick. I see no benefit to making it look like this
line is Swift when it's really not parsed as such. Like a doctype in HTML
or a shebang line in Python, a special comment is lightweight, familiar,
and does not suggest any capability it doesn't have.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 17:4
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:06 PM, Rick Ballard wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> The reason I was suggesting a simple DSL in a comment instead of using Swift
> for that declaration is because we need to know what this value is before we
> start the Swift interpreter, so that we know what Swift language
Hi Matthew,
The reason I was suggesting a simple DSL in a comment instead of using Swift
for that declaration is because we need to know what this value is before we
start the Swift interpreter, so that we know what Swift language compatibility
mode to run the interpreter in. I suppose that it'
It’s clear that a lot of work has gone into identifying and evaluating several
different approaches. Thank you for doing the hard work here!
I think I might have one additional alternative to consider. I like the idea
of using Package.swift to specify the tools version, but I think the
disadv
