[swift-evolution] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

Mon Dec 25 11:18:44 CST 2017

yeah among people i know most ios updates are accidental. unless you count
the one time my friend updated because her phone automatically downloaded
the iso and it was taking up like 5 gb and she had no space left. the last
times i remember anyone willingly updating their iphone was the ios7 update
and the one that gave us all the new emojis. personally mine’s been
pestering me about ios 11.2.1 for a long ass time and i’m actually
relatively good about updating ios because people don’t get the echo text
effect when i send it. also i’m sure the apple slowing down old iphones
news isn’t helping much lol

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Jean-Daniel <mailing at xenonium.com> wrote:

> Look like we don’t know the same users.
> I don’t know a single user that didn’t update it’s device at least once
> since he bought it, even if some may avoid the latest update when there
> device grow old though.
>
> Le 25 déc. 2017 à 05:46, Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
>
> in theory this could happen but if you ask me this is such an exceedingly
> rare case that i don’t count much net benefit from it. most ithing users
> (that i know) avoid ios updates like hell but have automatic app updates
> turned on. so 99% of the time i would expect the app version to be more
> recent than the library version.
>
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Slava Pestov <spestov at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 24, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> why can’t we just remove inlineable functions from ABI altogether? if the
>> argument is that app code won’t be able to take advantage of improved
>> implementations in future library versions i don’t think that makes sense
>> at all i would assume client code gets recompiled much more often than
>> library code and their updates are much more likely to be downloaded by
>> users than library updates.
>>
>>
>> This is not necessarily true. If Swift were to ship with the OS, updating
>> the OS might install a new Swift standard library without updating all of
>> your apps.
>>
>> Slava
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Proposal link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/p
>>> roposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>>
>>>    -1
>>>
>>>    The proposal puts all the emphasis on the programmer. It is better
>>>    for the compiler to decide if something is to be inclined both across
>>>    modules and within modules.
>>>
>>>    If something is made public then it should be fixed for a given
>>>    major version number. No need for extra annotation.
>>>
>>>    A module system that allows versioning is a better solution.
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
>>>    change to Swift?
>>>
>>>    Yes significant but wrong solution
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>>>
>>>    No, cluttering up declarations is completely against the clarity of
>>>    Swift. For example who other than people on this group will understand
>>>    @inline(never) @inlinable.
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar
>>>    feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>>>
>>>    Yes C and C++ and found the equivalent of these annotations
>>>    problematic. In Java they eliminated all this and let the compiler do the
>>>    work. In practice this works much better.
>>>
>>>    Perhaps the compiler should publish the SIL or LLVM for all public
>>>    functions. Analogous to Java’s class files. This sort of system works
>>>    really will, much better than C and C++.
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
>>>    reading, or an in-depth study?
>>>    Followed the discussions and read the proposal. The proposal doesn’t
>>>    seem to encompass all the discussions. It would be nice if the proposal had
>>>    a much more extensive summary of alternatives suggested.
>>>
>>> -- Howard.
>>>
>>> On 20 Dec 2017, at 7:19 pm, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution <
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The proposal is available here:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposa
>>> ls/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md
>>>
>>> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All review
>>> feedback should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at:
>>>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>
>>> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the
>>> review manager.
>>>
>>> When replying, please try to keep the proposal link at the top of the
>>> message:
>>>
>>> Proposal link: https://github.com/apple/swift
>>> -evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-
>>> and-specialization.md
>>> ...
>>> Reply text
>>> ...
>>> Other replies
>>>
>>> What goes into a review of a proposal?
>>>
>>> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
>>> through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of
>>> Swift.
>>>
>>> When reviewing a proposal, here are some questions to consider:
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
>>>    change to Swift?
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar
>>>    feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
>>>    reading, or an in-depth study?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171225/8bd2b771/attachment.html>