Finding resources.

I am very new to vapors and no nothing about it. I try to find some resources but don't find anything helping. Right now i am assigned to make a web form in vapor and because of lack of knowledge I am having trouble.
I have to submit that as soon as possible.
Will you please help me out.

Thanks & Regards:
Moughees Haider.

Hi, Moughees. This mailing list is for issues found developing with the
Swift language and not for help with third party frameworks such as Vapor.

Looking at the page for Vapor at https://github.com/vapor/vapor it seems
that they use a Slack channel for support. I would suggest you install a
Slack client and join their channel to get your questions answered.

···

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:53 PM, moughees shah via swift-users < swift-users@swift.org> wrote:

I am very new to vapors and no nothing about it. I try to find some
resources but don't find anything helping. Right now i am assigned to make
a web form in vapor and because of lack of knowledge I am having trouble.
I have to submit that as soon as possible.
Will you please help me out.

Thanks & Regards:
Moughees Haider.

_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users

--
Nate Birkholz

Hi, All:

I’m giving a presentation on Swift this weekend, and am trying to find justification for some of the design decisions that they made. Is there anything out there that goes into the detail of this? Like … why did the use “ for characters, or \() for String interpolation?

Thanks,

Michael

Specifically WRT to double quotes for characters, the Commonly Rejected Changes doc (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/commonly_proposed.md) says, "Swift takes the approach of highly valuing Unicode. However, there are multiple concepts of a character that could make sense in Unicode, and none is so much more commonly used than the others that it makes sense to privilege them. We'd rather save single quoted literals for a greater purpose (e.g. non-escaped string literals)."

Otherwise, off the top of my head I'm not sure. If it's a particularly controversial decision, there's a fair chance it's come up on the swift-evolution list, though, so maybe search its archives?

Hope that helps,
- Dave Sweeris

···

On Oct 31, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Michael Rogers via swift-users <swift-users@swift.org> wrote:

Hi, All:

I’m giving a presentation on Swift this weekend, and am trying to find justification for some of the design decisions that they made. Is there anything out there that goes into the detail of this? Like … why did the use “ for characters, or \() for String interpolation?

Thanks,

Michael
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users

To expand on this, most (if not all) the proposals in the list of proposals
on GitHub (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/tree/master/proposals)
have a "Rationale" link to a mailing list archive post by one of the Swift
core team members explaining why a certain decision was reached. Those are
probably worth looking through. Some of the simpler and less controversial
proposals have almost no explanation, but the larger and controversial
proposals have extensively written-up rationale posts.

Best,
Austin

···

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:25 PM, David Sweeris via swift-users < swift-users@swift.org> wrote:

Specifically WRT to double quotes for characters, the Commonly Rejected
Changes doc (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/
commonly_proposed.md) says, "Swift takes the approach of highly valuing
Unicode. However, there are multiple concepts of a character that could
make sense in Unicode, and none is so much more commonly used than the
others that it makes sense to privilege them. We'd rather save single
quoted literals for a greater purpose (e.g. non-escaped string literals)."

Otherwise, off the top of my head I'm not sure. If it's a particularly
controversial decision, there's a fair chance it's come up on the
swift-evolution list, though, so maybe search its archives?

Hope that helps,
- Dave Sweeris

> On Oct 31, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Michael Rogers via swift-users < > swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, All:
>
> I’m giving a presentation on Swift this weekend, and am trying to find
justification for some of the design decisions that they made. Is there
anything out there that goes into the detail of this? Like … why did the
use “ for characters, or \() for String interpolation?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> swift-users mailing list
> swift-users@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users

_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users

Sorry for the second email, but there's one link in particular that I think
might be valuable (and is not easily found any other way). This little
discussion by Chris Lattner discusses the dynamic nature of some popular
programming languages compared to Swift, and has some explanation as to why
Swift does things its way.
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151207/001948.html

Best,
Austin

···

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzheng@gmail.com> wrote:

To expand on this, most (if not all) the proposals in the list of
proposals on GitHub (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/tree/master/
proposals) have a "Rationale" link to a mailing list archive post by one
of the Swift core team members explaining why a certain decision was
reached. Those are probably worth looking through. Some of the simpler and
less controversial proposals have almost no explanation, but the larger and
controversial proposals have extensively written-up rationale posts.

Best,
Austin

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:25 PM, David Sweeris via swift-users < > swift-users@swift.org> wrote:

Specifically WRT to double quotes for characters, the Commonly Rejected
Changes doc (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/common
ly_proposed.md) says, "Swift takes the approach of highly valuing
Unicode. However, there are multiple concepts of a character that could
make sense in Unicode, and none is so much more commonly used than the
others that it makes sense to privilege them. We'd rather save single
quoted literals for a greater purpose (e.g. non-escaped string literals)."

Otherwise, off the top of my head I'm not sure. If it's a particularly
controversial decision, there's a fair chance it's come up on the
swift-evolution list, though, so maybe search its archives?

Hope that helps,
- Dave Sweeris

> On Oct 31, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Michael Rogers via swift-users < >> swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, All:
>
> I’m giving a presentation on Swift this weekend, and am trying to find
justification for some of the design decisions that they made. Is there
anything out there that goes into the detail of this? Like … why did the
use “ for characters, or \() for String interpolation?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> swift-users mailing list
> swift-users@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users

_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users

This is perfect, thank you! And it is comforting to see that so much thought went into these decisions ...

Michael

···

On Oct 31, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzheng@gmail.com> wrote:

To expand on this, most (if not all) the proposals in the list of proposals on GitHub (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/tree/master/proposals) have a "Rationale" link to a mailing list archive post by one of the Swift core team members explaining why a certain decision was reached. Those are probably worth looking through. Some of the simpler and less controversial proposals have almost no explanation, but the larger and controversial proposals have extensively written-up rationale posts.