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

[Adrian Zubarev]

You might consider the topic I started about access modifier on extensions. LINK

Fixing this would be a breaking change, because:

if you never explicitly set public modifier the visibility would break
fixing implicit public modifier on extensions would mean fixing the problems with protocols + extensions, because right now its not possible to use access modifier when there are protocols attached to the extension.
There is no proposal yet, but there is almost no feedback on that topic as well.



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 22. Juni 2016 um 18:48:45, John McCall via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org) schrieb:

On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Javier Soto <javier.api at gmail.com> wrote:
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.

I believe we consider this plan of record, actually, other than the spelling of the modifier.  It's something we probably ought to commit to in Swift 3, though.

John.

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

_______________________________________________
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/20160622/967ec5fb/attachment.html>