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

[Taras Zakharko]

> On 29 Jul 2016, at 00:21, Saagar Jha via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> The reason C-style for loops were removed were because most of the time they could be represented by Swift syntax. Have you taken a look at stride(from:to:by:)?

A minor correction: it should be ‚all of the time‘ :) Iterator-based loops are a strict superset of the for(;;) loop.

Anyway, we have discussed this extensively in the past, Ted is the only person who’s still keeps stubbornly hacking on this topic and so far he has failed to produce any convincing evidence in favour of the for(;;) loop. Its time to either accept defeat or produce some new material to discuss. Austin is absolutely right that repeating same things only makes this already huge list even bigger and less digestible. 

Best, 

 T. 

> 
> Saagar Jha
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 28, 2016, at 15:08, Ted F.A. van Gaalen via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Austin,
>> 
>> please read inline.
>>> On 28.07.2016, at 23:47, Austin Zheng <austinzheng at gmail.com <mailto:austinzheng at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen <tedvgiosdev at gmail.com <mailto:tedvgiosdev at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Hi Austin, thank you, please see inline
>>> ? 
>>> I have explained this many times before, didn’t I? 
>>> 
>>> Its removal causes a very crucial limitation/change in the way 
>>> one writes programs, So writing about this for;; subject is
>>> very, very different from long discussions like those about 
>>> allowing a comma at the end of a list or not…
>>> because removing the for;; has a very heavy impact.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, IMHO the decision to remove the for;; was based
>>> on very subjective loose and partly irrelevant criteria.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't care how good your reasons are, the fact of the matter is that it was extensively discussed, a decision was made, and it is now a done deal.
>> Napoleon said something similar when pushing his army towards Moscow...
>>> Please remember that these are high-traffic lists that many people subscribe to; complaining about the C for loop is a waste of everybody's time.
>> That’s your opinion.
>>> At the very least, please respect the process and put together a proposal that we can all discuss,
>> As written before, I will write the proposal after Swift 3.0 is released.
>> If you are interested in bringing it back then you could help
>> me with it.
>>> instead of asking Chris or whoever to step in and make an exception because you don't like it.
>> Yes, indeed, I am exceptionally asking to make an exception, to keep the for ;; in
>> for the time being.
>> 
>> As concerning your “high traffic” notion, this is written material
>> no doubt, the recipients are capable enough to put it aside for later
>> if they’d wish to do so. 
>> 
>> Sorry, if you don’t like it.
>> Thanks.
>> TedvG
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160729/fe919bc1/attachment.html>