[swift-evolution] [Accepted] SE-0091: Improving operator requirements in protocols
allevato at google.com
Wed Jul 13 22:57:29 CDT 2016
Thanks Chris! I'm happy that the proposal was well-received, and thanks to
Doug for the great improvements for revision 2.
Related, does the acceptance of this proposal imply the removal of the
named methods from FloatingPoint and Arithmetic in favor of static
operators, or do we need a separate proposal for that?
I'll work on a PR to the proposal that covers the changes regarding
classes, and to list the protocols affected by this (FP and Arithmetic
noted above, as well as Equatable and others).
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:46 PM Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> Proposal Link:
> The second review of "SE-0091: Improving operator requirements in
> protocols" ran from July 7...12, 2016. The proposal has been *accepted with
> The second iteration of this proposal has been very well received by both
> the community and core team. The core team requests one minor
> modification: in an effort to reduce the scope of the proposal, it should
> specifically require that operator declarations in classes be written as
> static (or equivalently, as “final class”). In the future, support for
> operators may be extended to support dynamic dispatch, and the core team
> wants to keep the design space open. The core team also observed that the
> impact on the standard library is not captured in this proposal, but that
> can be incorporated later (as an amendment to this proposal) since it
> should have little user impact.
> Thank you to Tony Allevato and Doug Gregor for driving this discussion
> forward! I filed SR-2073 to track implementation work on this.
> -Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution