> On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> As I mentioned before, the Swift 3 release is winding down. There is still
>> time left to make changes, but it is very short. As such, we - as a
>> community - need to stay focused on the goals for this release, principally
>> the goal to get to source stability. It is very important for users of
>> Swift that Swift 3 and the Swift 4 compiler be as compatible as possible.
>
> A few things on my radar.
>
> Fully breaking that won't be possible post Swift 3:
> Rationalizing the first/last/prefix/suffix/drop/etc. methods. Brent R-G
> said he'd run with this. Discussion:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/16334/
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/16334/>
> Rationalizing base conversion protocol names. I personally don't have the
> heart to try to re-address the "LiteralConvertible" protocol naming thing
> again but this would be the last chance to do anything about getting this
> issue addressed.
> Potentially code breaking:
> Rationalizing for loops-in either by removing `where` (breaking) or
> completing the filter/break operations (additive but wordy). Discussion here
> (primarily during WWDC week):
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/20142
> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/20142> My draft
> proposal
> <https://github.com/erica/swift-evolution/blob/5703c94450dcf4a3bc941333d3fadd90a7bd4ad8/proposals/XXXX-whereloops.md>
> also addresses `where` in switch and catch statements, which could be
> breaking if changed to `if`.
I agree that these would be breaking.
> Redesigning de-init to allow you to declare cleanup operations at points
> where the dangerous operations are first invoked. Introduced by Graham Perks
> but ran into WWDC disruption of discussion. Discussion here:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/20019
> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/20019>
> Ending the strong-weak dance once and for all by allowing {self in} and [weak
> self] / guard let self = self, which would impact a lot of code more than be
> breaking in and of itself.
These two are additive. We would not remove explicit captures or deinits.
John.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
