[swift-evolution] Pitch: Cross-module inlining and specialization

[Chris Lattner]

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Joe Groff <jgroff at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:58 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> We have discussed adding a "versioned @inlinable" variant that preserves the public entry point for older clients, while making the declaration inlinable for newer clients. This will likely be a separate proposal and discussion.
>>> 
>> 5) It eliminates this complexity.
> 
> It wouldn't avoid the complexity, because we want the "non-ABI, always-emit-into-client" behavior for the standard library. For the soon-to-be-ABI-stable libraries where @inlinable even matters, such as the standard library and Apple SDK overlays, there's pretty much perfect overlap between things we want to inline and things we don't want to take up binary space and ABI surface in binaries, so the behavior Slava proposes seems like the right default. 

I disagree.  The semantics being proposed perfectly overlap with the transitional plan for overlays (which matters for the next few years), but they are the wrong default for anything other than overlays and the wrong thing for long term API evolution over the next 20 years.

-Chris


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20171003/547d96e7/attachment.html>