[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0077: Improved operator declarations
jeremy.j.pereira at googlemail.com
Thu May 19 06:58:10 CDT 2016
> On 18 May 2016, at 04:30, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1. A major improvement over the current system. I’m fine with the suggested syntax in general. I’ll be using it rarely enough that it won’t bother me what is eventually settled on.
By the way, in the future directions version of the BitwiseShift group we have
Is that a typo?
Also, just to confirm that my understanding of how this will work is correct, the proposal seems to suggest that future directions definitions of the bitwise operators will forbid combining bitwise operators in expressions with arithmetic operators e.g.
a << b + c
will be illegal because there is no relationship defined between the additive group and the bitwise groups (when it comes up for review, I will definitely be opposed to that, but it doesn’t affect my assessment of this 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?
I’ve used operator overloading in both C++ and C#. You can’t define new operators in C#, so the problem does not exist there and I can’t remember how it worked in C++ because the experience seems to have been erased from my mind.
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
Read the review, skimmed the three.
> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
> Thank you,
> -Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution