[swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

[Javier Soto]

How would we evaluate the proposal to introduce the "sealed" specifier for
classes (open within module, final outside of module) and default to that,
in terms of source-code compatibility?
>From my point of view it might be easier to do before Swift 3, but if
delayed until Swift 4 it wouldn't be the most time-consuming breakage for
developers.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:09 AM Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:59 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>
>    - Rationalizing base conversion protocol names. I personally don't
>    have the heart to try to re-address the "LiteralConvertible" protocol
>    naming thing again but this would be the last chance to do anything about
>    getting this issue addressed.
>
> Given the vast amount of bike shedding that has already happened around
> this topic, I don’t think there is a solution that everyone will be happy
> with.  It is also unclear (to me at least) what solution might be
> acceptable to the core team.
>
>
> To be clear, I don't care about the name.  If you want to rename
> IntegerLiteralConvertible to IntegerLiteral or whatever, I won't drag the
> conversation into the muck again. :)  It's the design of the requirements
> that I'm pretty opposed to revisiting.
>
>
> This is orthogonal to the discussion that happened in your thread,
> definitely no discussion of any changes to the requirements. :)
>
> We are discussing this proposal:
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md and
> specifically the use of the `Convertible` suffix for both the
> `*LiteralConvertible` protocols and the `Custom(Debug)StringConvertible`
> protocols where the conversion runs in opposite directions.
>
> The core team decision was:
>
> "The feedback on the proposal was generally positive about the idea of
> renaming these protocols, but the specific names in the proposal are not
> well received, and there is no apparent confluence in the community on
> better names.  The core team prefers discussion to continue -- if/when
> there is a strong proposal for a better naming approach, we can reconsider
> renaming these."
>
>
> John.
>
>
> At the same time, it continues to bother me that `Convertible` is used by
> standard library protocols with two completely different meanings.  This is
> a problem that deserves to be solved and as it involves a breaking change
> Swift 3 is the right timeframe in which to do so.
>
> If the core team is able to indicate an approach they favor I would be
> willing to revise and resubmit the proposal.  But I don’t want to spend any
> further time speculating about what solution might be considered acceptable.
>
> Matthew
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
-- 
Javier Soto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160622/28285781/attachment.html>