[swift-evolution] SE-0066 Reaction

[Andrew Bennett]

I initially had similar concerns to Mishal, but I worked my way through it
and found I was wrong.

In current Swift you can have a function:
A -> B -> C

Adding brackets for clarity, that is equivalent to this (current Swift):
A -> (B -> C)

After this proposal this will become:
(A) -> ((B) -> C)

Which can also be expressed (with proposal):
(A) -> (B) -> C

I don't think this is making it harder to do what you want. I think that's
what Chris meant. Please correct me if I'm wrong Chris :)

By my interpretation it is just removing the syntactic ambiguity between:
 * a single argument that is a tuple of type: (A, B, C)
 * multiple arguments: A, B, C

 This is a small change with a big win.

On Wednesday, 27 April 2016, Ryan Lovelett via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> SE-0066 is a very narrow proposal - it only affects syntax, not
> semantics.  The type system semantics that you seem interested in are
> unlikely to happen regardless of the syntax changes SE-0066 imply, and
> SE-0066 doesn’t have anything to do with that.
>
>
> It is most disappointing to read these sorts of statements.
>
> One of the things that I have noticed over the last year or so of working
> with Swift is a trend in the community of libriaries being written for
> Swift towards some of these "system semantics" (i.e., functional paradigms)
> like applicatives and such.
>
> Granted I may have a selection bias towards these sorts of libraries. That
> is, I tried one library that did some of this stuff so then I tried more.
> Eventually stumbling into an enclave of functional practioners of Swift.
> I'm willing to admit that I have not conducted a scientific survey.
>
> But from my vantage we have a minority of Swift users participating in
> these evolution discussions. Albeit, judging from the e-mail volume, an
> extremely _vocal_ minority. I worry that these things become an echo
> chamber and those not involved will look at some of the "writing on the
> wall" and think differently about Swift going forward. Indeed for those
> people they may look at Swift 3 and say "I did not leave Swift; Swift left
> me."
>
> What is more is that those not participating in these discussions now may
> leave them with no recourse to be heard. Because apparently Swift 3 is a
> do-or-die release (or as the author of this evolution put it: "It is now or
> never."). I wonder what portion of Swift developers, the ones who want to
> see Swift be their go-to language for the forseable future, understand the
> implications or justifications for a Swift 3 release.
>
> All that having been said, I get it, decisions are made by those who show
> up. Roger that. I also understand and agree with the desire to make Swift
> its own language. To show restraint at the urge to turn the language into a
> hodge podge of the "greatest hits" of language paradigms. I sincerely
> appreciate the difficulty of the task for the Swift core team.
>
> I realized at the end that I do not really have a point. Apparently I'm
> feeling philosphical this Wednesday morning.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160428/f08a0614/attachment.html>