[swift-evolution] A case for postponing ABI stability

[Rick Mann]

I'm also late to the thread (and the ABI stability discussion in general). Is there a reference online that describes the reason for desiring ABI stability? I mean, I get, generally, why we need it. But I'd like to see the arguments for why we need it *now*, before certain other things are in place. Not saying the reasons for the urgency aren't valid, I just don't know what they are.

Thanks!

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 08:44 , Freak Show via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> This is both great to hear (ivar introspection available) and a little disappointing (method level not).  Basically, I would hope for at least enough to allow implementation of KVC - which would require the ability to find and invoke methods by name.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 14:16, Joe Groff <jgroff at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> a lot of the information you'd need for many dynamic features is already there, and planned to be stabilized as part of the ABI. We already emit reflection data that describes the physical layouts of types, and once those formats are stabilized, building a library that interprets the metadata is additive (and could conceivably be done by a third party independent of the standard library). There may not be metadata for individual methods yet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


-- 
Rick Mann
rmann at latencyzero.com