My thoughts:
I don't like the idea of additional qualifiers after OS. Perhaps we could
rename it something more generic like "SDK" or split the non-common stuff in to
a seprarate module?
As for the proposal (I know it's too late for Swift 3, but I read it so I might
as well say what i thought ab
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Karl Wagner via swift-dev
> wrote:
>
> My thoughts:
>
> I don't like the idea of additional qualifiers after OS. Perhaps we could
> rename it something more generic like "SDK" or split the non-common stuff in
> to a seprarate module?
>
> As for the proposal (
Here is your TWISt-shout Newsletter for the week of Las Vegas Edition!
https://github.com/pepperdog/TWISt-shout/blob/master/2016/TWISt-shout-2016-07-11.md
Enjoy!
-Kenny
___
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/li
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Karl Wagner via swift-dev
> wrote:
>
> - Also don't like the simulator condition variable. The iOS simulator is
> literally x86 iOS. If there was an x86 iPhone, theoretically your binaries
> would be compatible. The fact that it runs on a simulator instead of a
I remember somebody telling me it was, but it was years ago and I'm probably
remembering it wrong. Fair enough though; I got told on that one 😶
I'm standing by the principle - it shouldn't matter if you're running in a
simulator or not. Use a compile flag if you must know, but in g
Master is currently broken due to following test failure. Can someone please
look at these tests failures?
Failing Tests (13):
Swift :: ClangModules/AppKit_test.swift
Swift :: ClangModules/availability_app_extension.swift
Swift :: ClangModules/availability_implicit_macosx.swift
Sw
