[swift-evolution] End of source-breaking changes for Swift 3

[Karl Wagner]

+1. There have been lots of accepted proposals which I argued against, but community-driven evolution means we have to compromise.
  

  
In Plato's Crito, Socrates refuses to flee Athens after being sentenced to death. He entered in to an agreement with the state to participate in the process and respect its judgements, and reasons that to violate the rules of the system because he believes the outcome unjust would be a greater injustice.
  

  
Just mentioning it; it's always been a fascinating story to me.
  

  
Karl
  

  
 Sent from my new   Email (https://itunes.apple.com/app/apple-store/id922793622?pt=814382&mt=8&ct=my_new_email)
  
  
  
  

  
  
>   
> On Jul 28, 2016 at 7:33 PM,  <Austin Zheng via swift-evolution (mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)>  wrote:
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> >   
> > On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen via swift-evolution  <swift-evolution at swift.org (mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)>  wrote:
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >
> >   
> >            -= Maybe it’s not too late =-   
> >   
> > For the moment the classical for ;;    could simply   
> >   
> > remain activated    (Yes)    in 3.0. because:    
> >   
> >   
> >   
>   
>
>   
> I don't understand why you keep on complaining about this.
>   
>
>   
> For the record, I too think getting rid of the C-style for loop was a mistake, and there are a number of other proposals whose outcomes are not ones I would have personally preferred.
>   
>
>   
> However,
>   
>
>   
> 1. There is a well-defined process through which all changes to the Swift language must go, laid out in the swift-evolution repository's documentation from the first day Swift became an open-source project.
>   
> 2. That process includes feedback and review from both the community and the Swift core engineers, and often multiple rounds of discussion.
>   
> 3. The process doesn't work if we disregard its outcomes simply because we don't like them, or if we allow interminable chains of back-and-forth proposals because people on one side of issue X simply cannot accept a particular decision.
>   
>
>   
> The technical aspects of the C-style for loop and its proposed replacements have already been discussed  ad nauseam   on this list and in other places, so I won't touch on them.
>   
>
>   
> Best regards,
>   
> Austin     
>   
>   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >     
> >   
> >    - It doesn’t conflict at all with all other language elements,
> >   
> >   
> >   
>   
>   
>  _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list  swift-evolution at swift.org (mailto: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/20160728/50144b1c/attachment.html>