> On 18 Apr 2017, at 10:12, David Waite <da...@alkaline-solutions.com> wrote: > > >> On Apr 18, 2017, at 1:00 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <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 > > Its important to realize that the swift evolution process isn’t a pure > democracy, or even a democratic republic :-)
Of course :) > I personally suspect if '25 was truly controversial amongst the people who > had proper votes (e.g. the core team), that it would not have been accepted. > However, there was a desire to have such features. I think there may have > been some pressure to have such a feature also included within the Swift 3 > release, which was meant to be the last non-backward-source-compatible > release. I’ve had the impression that some proposals have been accepted in the past with some core team members being against. But even if all team members think a proposal is a good idea, they might still agree that its design or implementation could need to be refined after real-world use. > I think SE-0169 and the limited choice within the Swift 4 (and all future > Swift releases) exemplifies that desire by the core team - that model could > be revised to allow splitting a type into extensions (in some contexts) > without having to raise access control, and make the purpose of the different > access control levels a bit clearer in the process. > > IMHO, the current evolution process is not about letting the community vote, > but to provide a larger pool of minds and eyes and recommendations to the > core team. > > -DW
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
