[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0027 Expose code unit initializers on String
zach at waldowski.me
Thu Feb 11 21:45:05 CST 2016
It arose out of the original motivation to expose and maintain the
existing methods. Users might find the `hadError` flag to be useful when
code sequence repairs are enabled. It seems like that was the original
intent, too, but everyone in the stdlib is throwing that away.
Looking at it now, I don't think it's needed as public API. I'm in the
midst of rebasing the branch onto master, so I'll play with it on there
and update the proposal to fit.
>From an API surface area perspective, the legacy CString constructors
need the full static (not necessarily public then, of course). In a
perfect world, once those are gone, the static can get elided into the
two initializers… which makes the case even more solid for not exporting
it in this proposal.
Cheers! Zachary Waldowski zach at waldowski.me
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016, at 09:15 PM, Tony Parker via swift-evolution wrote:
> Hi Doug, Zachary,
> Can you provide more clarification on why the static func is needed?
> It seems like the functionality is all about initialization and
> therefore belongs in an initializer (as is also proposed).
> - Tony
>> On Feb 11, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-
>> evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> Hello Swift community,
>> The review of SE-0027 "Expose code unit initializers on String"
>> begins now and runs through February 16, 2016. The proposal is
>> available here:
>> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All
>> reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
>> 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:
>>> Proposal link:
>>> Reply text
>>>> Other replies
>> 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?
>> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
>> change to Swift?
>> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>> * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar
>> feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
>> reading, or an in-depth study? More information about the Swift
>> evolution process is available at
>> Thank you,
>> Doug Gregor
>> Review Manager
>> swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution at swift.org
> swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution