[Review] SE-0157: Support recursive constraints on associated types


(John McCall) #1

Hello Swift community,

The review of SE-0157 "Support recursive constraints on associated types" begins now and runs through next Wednesday, March 8, 2017. The proposal is available here:

https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0157-recursive-protocol-constraints.md
Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews 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/0157-recursive-protocol-constraints.md
Reply text

Other replies
<https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/607/files#what-goes-into-a-review-1>What goes into a review?

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:

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?
More information about the Swift evolution process is available here:

https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md
Thanks,

John.

(Review Manager)


(Dave Abrahams) #2

+1, duh

···

on Tue Feb 28 2017, John McCall <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

What is your evaluation of the proposal?

--
-Dave


(Matthew Johnson) #3

What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1. Checking things off the list of items on the generics manifesto is always great to see, especially when they allow for improvements in the standard library.

Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

Absolutely.

Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Very much.

If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

N/A

How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

Quick read, but I have bumped up against this limitation and am really looking forward to seeing it removed.


(John McCall) #4

How much effort would you say that you've put into this review? Very little, a moderate amount, or a great deal? I will now use several words; please let me know how each word makes you feel about this review. Would you describe this review as... excited? cathartic? intense? proud? Do you feel that this review has made you more or less likely to review similar features in the future? We appreciate your honesty and thank you for your time.

John.

···

On Feb 28, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
on Tue Feb 28 2017, John McCall <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1, duh


(Hooman Mehr) #5

+1, basically the same response as Matt’s.

···

On Feb 28, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1. Checking things off the list of items on the generics manifesto is always great to see, especially when they allow for improvements in the standard library.

Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

Absolutely.

Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Very much.

If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

N/A

How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

Quick read, but I have bumped up against this limitation and am really looking forward to seeing it removed.

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


(Haravikk) #6

What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1

Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

Yes. The problem it addresses is an almost daily annoyance when working with collections!

Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Yes. In fact it removes the need for some very ugly workarounds that are currently in use within stdlib (and aren't full workarounds anyway).

How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

Been following the subject for a while, quick re-read of the latest proposal.

···

On 28 Feb 2017, at 21:40, John McCall via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:


(Jon Hull) #7

What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1. Much needed improvement.

Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

Yes, definitely

Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Yes

If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

N/A

How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

A quick read now. Much more thought on it a while back.


(David Sweeris) #8

Hello Swift community,

The review of SE-0157 "Support recursive constraints on associated types" begins now and runs through next Wednesday, March 8, 2017. The proposal is available here:

https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0157-recursive-protocol-constraints.md
What is your evaluation of the proposal?

10/10, would vote for again.

I'm pretty sure the first non-trivial thing I tried to do in Swift involved butting up against this limitation, and then trying to find a way around it. And one of the first things I do when a new version comes out is check if anything's changed WRT this (well, it used to be… with Swift being open-source now, things are less surprising).

Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

Yep

Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Yep

If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

N/A

How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

Two quick readings.

- Dave Sweeris

···

On Feb 28, 2017, at 13:40, John McCall <rjmccall@apple.com <mailto:rjmccall@apple.com>> wrote:


(David Hart) #9

What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1, duh

How much effort would you say that you've put into this review? Very little, a moderate amount, or a great deal? I will now use several words; please let me know how each word makes you feel about this review. Would you describe this review as... excited? cathartic? intense? proud? Do you feel that this review has made you more or less likely to review similar features in the future? We appreciate your honesty and thank you for your time.

:rofl:

···

On 1 Mar 2017, at 04:00, John McCall via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

On Feb 28, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
on Tue Feb 28 2017, John McCall <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

John.

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


(Daniel Leping) #10

Definitely +1

···

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 at 12:59 Haravikk via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

On 28 Feb 2017, at 21:40, John McCall via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

   - What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1

   - Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
   change to Swift?

Yes. The problem it addresses is an almost daily annoyance when working
with collections!

   - Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Yes. In fact it removes the need for some very ugly workarounds that are
currently in use within stdlib (and aren't full workarounds anyway).

   - How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
   reading, or an in-depth study?

Been following the subject for a while, quick re-read of the latest
proposal.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(TJ Usiyan) #11

- What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1

   - Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
   to Swift?

Yes. Yes. A thousand times, yes.

   - Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Yes.

   - If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature,
   how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

It will be as expressive or more than most other examples.

   - How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
   reading, or an in-depth study?

I have followed discussion read the proposal through.

···

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Daniel Leping via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Definitely +1

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 at 12:59 Haravikk via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

On 28 Feb 2017, at 21:40, John McCall via swift-evolution < >> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

   - What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1

   - Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
   change to Swift?

Yes. The problem it addresses is an almost daily annoyance when working
with collections!

   - Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Yes. In fact it removes the need for some very ugly workarounds that are
currently in use within stdlib (and aren't full workarounds anyway).

   - How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
   reading, or an in-depth study?

Been following the subject for a while, quick re-read of the latest
proposal.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

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