[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Explicit Synthetic Behaviour

[Ted Kremenek]

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Haravikk via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 20:10, Ben Rimmington <me at benrimmington.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 15:31, Haravikk wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 02:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:13 Haravikk wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I mean because not once have you summarised what these alleged "considerations" were; if they exist then you should be able do so, yet all I am hearing is "it was considered", which frankly is not an argument at all as it is entirely without substance.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course it is not an argument at all. It is a factual statement. The objections which you mentioned were also mentioned prior to a decision about SE-0185. The community and the core team had an opportunity to view those objections. After that time, a decision was made, having considered all the stated pros and cons which included the ones that you are now repeating. What "considerations" are you looking for?
>>> 
>>> Ones with proof that they were ever made! Once again you are stating that these issues were "considered", yet you show not a single shred of proof that that was the case. You're asking me to take you at your word but I have no reason to trust that the problem has been as carefully considered as you claim.
>>> I was involved in one such discussion and the response from the core team was frankly pitiful; they did not provide any justification whatsoever.
>> 
>> Chris Lattner already said that the core team discussed your concerns:
>> 
>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170814/038854.html>
>> 
>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170814/038883.html>
>> 
>> The original idea was for most types to be *implicitly* equatable and hashable:
>> 
>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160307/012099.html>
>> 
>> The accepted proposal, with *explicit* declaration of conformance, is a good compromise.
>> 
>> Instead of discussing hypothetical issues with SE-0185, we can wait for Swift 4.1 beta.
> 
> 
><Content removed because of code of conduct violation>

I’m sad to see the thread go this way.  Myself and others who want to make swift-evolution feel like a place where ideas are heard certainly are sensitive to individuals getting frustrated.  That said, closing out the thread in a way that clearly violates the code of conduct (and thus the core sense of courtesy and professionalism we want to maintain on the list) isn’t effective either.  I think the thread should stop here, and remedial actions will be taken to stem this negative dialogue from continuing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20171001/b00e40b4/attachment.html>