[swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110
gwendal.roue at gmail.com
Tue Jun 6 07:32:54 CDT 2017
> Le 6 juin 2017 à 12:06, Vladimir.S <svabox at gmail.com> a écrit :
> On 06.06.2017 7:36, Gwendal Roué wrote:
>>> The migrator does not properly distinquish between single-tuple and multiple-argument function types as described in SE–0110, causing additional mismatched type errors with the closure types that are passed to Standard Library functions expecting tuple objects. (32431899)
>>> Workaround: Manually fix the closure types to accept values of tuples instead of separate argument values.
>>> When using $0 and $1 in a closure that is passed to a function expecting a closure with a single tuple argument, the compiler may error after migration with:
>>> error: closure tuple parameter '(TYPE, TYPE)' does not support destructuring with implicit parameters
>>> Workaround: Change $0 and $1 references to $0.0 and $0.1 respectively.
>> Where are the firemen?
> Could you help me to understand which of my question did you reply on with the above link and quotes? What are you trying to say? Thank you.
Oh, just that the Xcode 9 beta release notes list not less than four (four!) known issues related to SE-0110.
On top of the already discussed regressions introduced by SE-0110, we now have a painful migration.
I wonder why we're still spilling blood, why the fire hasn't been extinguish yet. Hence: where are the firemen?
Is there anybody responsible here? When will this endless discussion about "revisiting SE-0110" will eventually end with a reasonable decision?
When will the proposal process will be amended so that developers should be given a voice, along with language layers, on swift evolution? Developers don't have the same skills as language layers. Too many developers lack the poise and confidence to talk about the future impact of a language modification. Too many language layers fail to admit that some language modification do actual harm on written code after they have invested a lot of time thinking about it. That's normal.
And that's a recipe for things like SE-0110.
What I've read here so far makes me think SE-0110 belongs to the "false good ideas", as SE-0025 have been before. Along with SE-0025, maybe SE-0166, it has been deemed "stable" much too early. Unfortunately, the swift evolution process only produces stable amendments that are very painful to fix. I wish the core team would think about it some day: aren't the quality of the language and its core libraries at stake?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution