<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 11, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch <<a href="mailto:jtbandes@gmail.com" class="">jtbandes@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Great, thanks Mark! I look forward to it.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>To be clear, I’m specifically looking at making the change to remove the coercion from T to T? for operator arguments.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I agree there might be other things worth looking at regarding operators that take optionals, but I’m not currently looking at those issues.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Mark</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra">
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Mark Lacey <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:mark.lacey@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">mark.lacey@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Hi Jacob,<div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 11, 2016, at 4:23 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Bump for Swift 3.<div class="gmail_extra">
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:jtbandes@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">jtbandes@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">These operators cause some potential for confusion:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""> public func <<T : Comparable>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> Bool</div><div class=""> public func ><T : Comparable>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> Bool<br class=""></div><div class=""> public func <=<T : Comparable>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> Bool<br class=""></div><div class=""> public func >=<T : Comparable>(lhs: T?, rhs: T?) -> Bool</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. The meaning of T? < T? is not immediately obvious (Why is nil < .some(x) for any x? Personally, my intuition says that Optional should only provide a partial order, with .none not being ordered w.r.t. .some(x).)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. Even if the meaning is understood, it can be surprising when the (T?, T?) -> Bool version is used instead of (T, T) -> Bool.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Prior discussion:</div><div class="">- <a href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.devel/2089" target="_blank" class="">http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.devel/2089</a><br class=""></div><div class="">- <a href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/10095" target="_blank" class="">http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/10095</a></div></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">- <a class="">rdar://</a></span><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">16966712&</span><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">22833869</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">- Replies to <a href="https://twitter.com/jtbandes/status/646914031433871364" target="_blank" class="">https://twitter.com/jtbandes/status/646914031433871364</a></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">In the swift-dev thread from May, Chris said:</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><br class=""></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">One of the ideas that Joe Pamer has been discussing is whether the implicit promotion from T to T? should be disabled when in an operator context. Doing so would fix problems like this, but making the code invalid.</span></blockquote><div style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">A change like this would be source-breaking, so if the core team has recommendations for how to handle these issues, now is probably the time to get it done.</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span>I overlooked your previous message on this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m actually writing up a proposal for this now, and have an implementation that I’ve done a bit of testing with.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m hoping to get the proposal out in the next couple days.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Mark</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></font></span></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>