On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Hello Swift community, > > The review of SE-0185 - "Synthesizing Equatable and Hashable conformance" > begins now and runs through August 15, 2017. The proposal is available here: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/ > proposals/0185-synthesize-equatable-hashable.md > > > Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews > should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at: > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the > review manager. When replying, please try to keep the proposal link at the > top of the message: > > What goes into a review? > > The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review > through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of > Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to > answer in your review: > > • What is your evaluation of the proposal? > Brilliant. However, I believe that this is a typo of some importance to clarify: > The compiler synthesizes P's requirements for a struct with one or more stored properties if and only if all of the types of all of its stored properties conform to P. I think the author means to write "...conform to {Equatable | Hashable}"; it is unclear what it means for a struct P to have stored properties that "conform to P" (which would be an odd restriction in any case). The same issue occurs in preceding bulleted list with respect to enums. > • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a > change to Swift? > This is a wonderful addition. > • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > Yes, the author did an excellent job paralleling the existing rules for Codable synthesis; I agree fully with that approach as it makes this feature more easily learnable and predictable for all users. > • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar > feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > I haven't in recent times, but I do know that other languages do this. > • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? > A quick reading today; an in-depth study previously.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution