The second review of SE-0289: Result Builders begins now and runs through October 1, 2020.
This is a follow up to the previous review discussion.
There were a few concerns that were brought up, with one that clearly stood out: naming. Given this feedback, the core team decided to re-run the review to rename the attribute based on the suggestions that garnered traction during the review. Additional concerns that were brought up were around the documentation of the feature as well as concerns around tooling with things such as diagnostics. There has been work to address this feedback as well with improvements to the documentation in the proposal and additional diagnostics in the compiler.
There was some feedback over additional features such as enabling stateful builders and handling for the
Void types. These are interesting avenues to explore for future extension; however, the core team believes that they can be reasonably considered by later proposals.
This review is limited to:
- the name of the feature and its attribute and
- arguments that one or more of the suggested extensions will be problematic to explore in the future
Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All review feedback should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager (via email or direct message in the Swift forums).
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?