[swift-evolution] Enums and Source Compatibility
david at hartbit.com
Wed Sep 6 01:35:44 CDT 2017
I like this new direction. But I have Rod’s inverse question: have you considered only having the nonexhaustive keyword? Similar to how non-final doesn't exist because its opposite is the default behaviour. That would also free us from searching for a good pair of keywords and only find one good keyword (extensible, expandable, …) which doesn’t contain a negative.
> On 6 Sep 2017, at 02:36, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:
> It's in the "Alternatives Considered" section. :-) That was my desired design when we started, but feedback convinced me that the break from Swift 4 mode would be too drastic. The same valid code would have a different meaning whether you were writing Swift 4 or Swift 5.
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 17:30, Rod Brown <rodney.brown6 at icloud.com <mailto:rodney.brown6 at icloud.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Jordan,
>> I’m not sure how much bearing on this my comment will have.
>> Have you considered having only “exhaustive” as a keyword, and make the default non-exhaustive? It seems that “exhaustive" would be the rarer case, as it promises a lot more about compatibility (much like there is no such thing as “non-final”). Also, non exhaustive seems a massive mouthful despite it probably being the correct term.
>> - Rod
>>> On 6 Sep 2017, at 10:19 am, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose at apple.com>> wrote:
>>> I've taken everyone's feedback into consideration and written this up as a proposal: https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/non-exhaustive-enums/proposals/nnnn-non-exhaustive-enums.md <https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/non-exhaustive-enums/proposals/nnnn-non-exhaustive-enums.md>. The next step is working on an implementation, but if people have further pre-review comments I'd be happy to hear them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution