> Once someone starts shipping something that depends on a feature they get
> very grumpy when it gets taken away.
Well, it happened before, and people's life went on without tuple splat and
currying… ;-)
I don't think an open Beta would add that much value on its own — but imho the
aspect of t
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:00 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>
> Here's my rough idea:
> The Swift compiler gains a new off-by-default `next` version triggerable with
> the `-swift-version next` flag.
> All controversial proposals start their implem
> On 19 Apr 2017, at 06:51, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:00 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello community,
>>
>> I'm happy to see that SE-0169 got accepted and that we've patched the issues
>> of SE-0025. But it's been a difficult process. And I c
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:00 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hello community,
>
> I'm happy to see that SE-0169 got accepted and that we've patched the issues
> of SE-0025. But it's been a difficult process. And I can't stop asking myself
> if it could have been avoided. The c
very subjective {
I see a similarity with SE-0169:
It's fighting symptoms instead of causes.
}
(less subjective)
Afaics, even members of the core team have their quarrels with the evolution
process, and I want to encourage everyone to talk openly about them.
Right now, we are at a turning point,
> On 18 Apr 2017, at 10:12, David Waite wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 1:00 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> All controversial proposals start their implementation in that version.
>
> Just one more note here, in regards to SE-0025
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 1:00 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> All controversial proposals start their implementation in that version.
Just one more note here, in regards to SE-0025
Its important to realize that the swift evolution process isn’t a pure
democracy, or even a democr
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 1:00 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> I'm happy to see that SE-0169 got accepted and that we've patched the issues
> of SE-0025. But it's been a difficult process. And I can't stop asking myself
> if it could have been avoided. The crux of the problem is th
Hello community,
I'm happy to see that SE-0169 got accepted and that we've patched the issues of
SE-0025. But it's been a difficult process. And I can't stop asking myself if
it could have been avoided. The crux of the problem is that
source-compatibility is now becoming a very strong requireme
