I've opened a pull request for the draft proposal. As others have said
it would be good to get this inconsistency fixed in time for Swift 4.
I'd be up for discussion around actually giving these keywords meaning
at some point, but there's lots of questions around that.
Thanks everyone for the feed
LGTM! I'd go ahead with opening a PR. Time is running out!
> On 8 May 2017, at 14:40, Greg Spiers wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:57 AM, David Hart wrote:
>> Sounds great! It should be an easy one to get through,
>
> Thanks David, appreciate it :) I've created a draft of the proposal.
> A
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:57 AM, David Hart wrote:
> Sounds great! It should be an easy one to get through,
Thanks David, appreciate it :) I've created a draft of the proposal.
Any feedback would be very welcome. I wasn't sure if there was an
effect on ABI stability or API resilience. I don't thin
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Goffredo Marocchi wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 8 May 2017, at 08:44, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> I can understand that, I am just wary of "let's do
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution
wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 8 May 2017, at 08:44, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>>
>> I can understand that, I am just wary of "let's do a pa
Sent from my iPhone
> On 8 May 2017, at 08:44, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>> I can understand that, I am just wary of "let's do a partially detrimental
>> change
>
> The key here is that there is no detriment to thi
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> I can understand that, I am just wary of "let's do a partially detrimental
> change
>
The key here is that there is no detriment to this change. There's no
functionality that's being remove
I can understand that, I am just wary of "let's do a partially detrimental
change no... we will... we will make it proper someday" kind of changes as they
seldom work out. Argument labels for stored closures and callbacks are still
lost for example :/...
Also, while here we keep pushing things
> On 8 May 2017, at 09:03, Goffredo Marocchi wrote:
>
> Over my dead body --random list dweller ;)
>
> Seriously though, I think the labels should be made to matter not removed if
> they do not matter now. I think this goes to a path where we should not take
> protocols as they should be true
Over my dead body --random list dweller ;)
Seriously though, I think the labels should be made to matter not removed if
they do not matter now. I think this goes to a path where we should not take
protocols as they should be true contracts for the API in question (default
method in protocols ma
Sounds great! It should be an easy one to get through,
> On 8 May 2017, at 08:35, Greg Spiers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:26 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>
>
> On 7 May 2017, at 20:12, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> mailto:swif
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:26 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 7 May 2017, at 20:12, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Today these keywords have no meaning inside a protocol, so clearly it
> should be an error to us
> On 7 May 2017, at 20:12, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Today these keywords have no meaning inside a protocol, so clearly it should
> be an error to use it in that context. I agree with Jordan that the error
> should be on the protocol.
>
> It's entirely a different conversat
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Johnson
wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 7, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Today these keywords have no meaning inside a protocol, so clearly it
> should be an error to use it in that conte
Sent from my iPad
> On May 7, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Today these keywords have no meaning inside a protocol, so clearly it should
> be an error to use it in that context. I agree with Jordan that the error
> should be on the protocol.
>
> It's entirely
Today these keywords have no meaning inside a protocol, so clearly it
should be an error to use it in that context. I agree with Jordan that the
error should be on the protocol.
It's entirely a different conversation whether the keyword should have
meaning or not. If it should, it seems to me it s
It would be useful to have a longer discussion on this as... I think that weak
has a place there and should be enforced as a protocol is the public facing
interface/api for the types who decide to adopt it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 7 May 2017, at 15:41, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
> wr
I had a short conversation on Twitter with Joe Groff, here is what he said
about it: “nowned/weak are meaningless inside a protocol”.
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 7. Mai 2017 um 13:54:28, Greg Spiers via swift-evolution
(swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
Hello,
I hope this is t
Hello,
I hope this is the appropriate place to raise this discussion and see if
it's worth a proposal around which direction to take.
I've recently had some confusion around specifying weak for a property in a
protocol and surprised later of not being warned if the adopting type does
not also s
19 matches
Mail list logo
