[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Explicit Synthetic Behaviour

[David Hart]

> On 2 Oct 2017, at 06:39, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Haravikk via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 20:10, Ben Rimmington <me at benrimmington.com <mailto: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-20170814/038854.html>>
>>> 
>>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170814/038883.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 <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.

Thanks for stepping in Ted. I’m very happy with how Swift Evolution has been going and I’m happy to see that when the Code of Conduct is violated, it is recognised and dealt with swiftly (no pun intended).

> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171002/f008eb51/attachment.html>