[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0018 Flexible Memberwise Initialization

[Matthew Johnson]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Janosch Hildebrand via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> On 12 Jan 2016, at 00:18, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Janosch Hildebrand <jnosh at jnosh.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 07:37, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 2:47 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>>> 
>>>> It’s a well-considered and well-written proposal. I agree with the semantics of memberwise initializers (+1 to adding a reasonable implicit memberwise initializer for classes, and the ability to use default arguments in that implicit memberwise initializer). However, I would prefer to accept the semantics as improvements to the creation of the implicit memberwise initializer, so it’s a -1 to the “memberwise” specifier and “…” placeholder syntax.
>>> 
>>> Since this has been mentioned a few times now I'd like to add that I would support that as well.
>>> 
>>> I'm not really sure enough yet as to how the reviews work, so I'll ask here:
>>> 
>>> Is it possible for a subset or modified version of a proposal to be accepted or would the proposal be rejected while asking for a reduced/modified follow-up proposal?
>>> 
>>> Also are proposals always accepted or rejected, or could a proposal be returned as "needs more work, submit again later" instead of a flat out rejection?
>> 
>> 
>> The core team can do any of the above, including accepting subsets of proposals, accepting a proposal with modification, sending a proposal back for revision to come through the process again, etc. In general, we’ll try to do the lowest-overhead thing that makes sense for Swift.
>> 
>> 	- Doug
> 
> Thanks, that's great to hear!

I agree.  I know that some parts of this proposal are more controversial than others, especially.  Least controversial being the improvements to the implicit memberwise initializer.  

I would much prefer to see a modified version of the proposal accepted than the whole thing rejected.

Matthew

> 
> - Janosch
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160111/4fdd08d7/attachment.html>