Re: [swift-dev] Location of "indirect" declaration modifier

> Also even if ‘indirect’ could always be inferred, it seems like a good idea > to give the user control over where the indirection occurs — this can have an > effect on the size of the enum value for instance. +1. Requiring it to be specified also prevents unintentional indirection. _

Re: [swift-dev] Initialization of default values

Thanks Doug, that makes sense. I was wondering if Joe's answer might have been referring to arguments with defaults. What are you doing for members with default values specific (and therefore not initialized by code in an initializer)? Do you plan changes to this as well? Matthew Sent fr

Re: [swift-dev] Initialization of default values

Thanks Jordan. I was guessing a synthesis like this was happening but didn't want to assume without asking. Is the initialization of members with initial values synthesized at the beginning of the initializer body before any user code? If not, at what point in the initializer does this happen

Re: [swift-dev] Warning when "overriding" an extension method that's not in the protocol

Sent from my iPad > On Jan 3, 2016, at 1:22 AM, Kevin Ballard via swift-dev > wrote: > > (CCing the list again as I believe you omitted it accidentally) > >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016, at 10:10 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: >>> On Jan 2, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Kevin Ballard via swift-dev >>> wrote:

Re: [swift-dev] Value-type bound protocols?

Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 13, 2017, at 11:56 AM, David Zarzycki via swift-dev > wrote: > > > >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 13:53, David Sweeris wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 09:54, David Zarzycki via swift-dev >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> As a part of a research project that

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

> On Oct 20, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-dev > wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 07:21 David Zarzycki > wrote: > > >> On Oct 20, 2017, at 07:51, Xiaodi Wu via swift-dev > > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Jonathan H

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

> On Oct 26, 2017, at 5:12 PM, David Sweeris via swift-dev > wrote: > > >> On Oct 26, 2017, at 2:57 PM, Greg Parker via swift-dev > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On Oct 26, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-dev >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, O

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

> On Nov 2, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-dev > wrote: > > It looks like we have a good solution. Per Steve and David’s suggestions: > > 1) Make FloatingPoint == reflexive > > 2) Add &== to FloatingPoint for those who specifically want IEEE behavior > > 3) Add a warning + fixit