on Wed Jul 27 2016, Ted Kremenek <kremenek-AT-apple.com> wrote: > - swift-evolution, swift-evolution-announce > > Dave/Max: can you speak this?
>> On Jul 27, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Tony Allevato <allev...@google.com> wrote: >> >> I noticed that while SE-0091 appears to be implemented (from a >> cursory glance at some of the affected types like Equatable and >> String), it looks like the named methods are still part of the >> FloatingPoint protocol and they still use global operators. >> >> Is anyone tracking the migration of that protocol (and possibly also >> the new Integer protocols) to use the new operator technique? (I >> have to apologize for not being able to update the proposal with >> another PR that listed all those changes—my free time outside my day >> job has been significantly reduced lately.) I think we view those changes as implicitly approved along with SE-0091. I was working on making them but we've run into bugs with the feature's implementation during the migration. When those are straightened out, we can move forward with that cleanup. >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:38 PM Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolut...@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolut...@swift.org>> >> wrote: >> Dear friends, >> >> Today is July 27 — and the last planned day to take source-breaking >> changes for Swift 3. It has been an incredible ride to this point, >> so let's take stock of where we are. Here are the list of currently >> accepted — but not yet (fully) implemented — evolution proposals >> (this is drawn from the "accepted" but not marked "implemented" >> proposals from the swift-evolution >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution> repository): >> >> SE-0025 - Scoped Access Level >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md> >> SE-0042 - Flattening the function type of unapplied method >> references >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0042-flatten-method-types.md> >> SE-0045 - Add scan, prefix(while:), drop(while:), and iterate to the >> stdlib >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0045-scan-takewhile-dropwhile.md> >> SE-0068 - Expanding Swift Self to class members and value types >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0068-universal-self.md> >> SE-0075 - Adding a Build Configuration Import Test >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0075-import-test.md> >> SE-0077 - Improved operator declarations >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0077-operator-precedence.md> >> SE-0080 - Failable Numeric Conversion Initializers >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0080-failable-numeric-initializers.md> >> SE-0081 - Move where clause to end of declaration >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0081-move-where-expression.md> >> SE-0082 - Package Manager Editable Packages >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0082-swiftpm-package-edit.md> >> SE-0088 - Modernize libdispatch for Swift 3 naming conventions >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0088-libdispatch-for-swift3.md> >> SE-0089 - Renaming String.init<T>(_: T) >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0089-rename-string-reflection-init.md> >> SE-0092 - Typealiases in protocols and protocol extensions >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0092-typealiases-in-protocols.md> >> SE-0096 - Converting dynamicType from a property to an operator >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0096-dynamictype.md> >> SE-0099 - Restructuring Condition Clauses >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0099-conditionclauses.md> >> SE-0101 - Reconfiguring sizeof and related functions into a >> unified MemoryLayout struct >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0101-standardizing-sizeof-naming.md> >> SE-0102 - Remove @noreturn attribute and introduce an >> empty Never type >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0102-noreturn-bottom-type.md> >> SE-0103 - Make non-escaping closures the default >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0103-make-noescape-default.md> >> SE-0104 - Protocol-oriented integers >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0104-improved-integers.md> >> SE-0107 - UnsafeRawPointer API >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0107-unsaferawpointer.md> >> SE-0110 - Distinguish between single-tuple and multiple-argument >> function types >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0110-distingish-single-tuple-arg.md> >> SE-0111 - Remove type system significance of function argument >> labels >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0111-remove-arg-label-type-significance.md> >> SE-0120 - Revise partition Method Signature >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0120-revise-partition-method.md> >> SE-0127 - Cleaning up stdlib Pointer and Buffer Routines >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0127-cleaning-up-stdlib-ptr-buffer.md> >> These are all changes the community has approved for Swift but did >> not make today's cutoff. Some of these proposals have >> implementations actively underway. For those proposals already in >> active development — and near completion — I am okay with extending >> the deadline for those changes to Friday, July 29. Such changes need >> to be approved by the release manager (myself) and should be merged >> into master via a pull request. When creating the pull request, >> please assign it to me (tkremenek), and mention the pull request on >> the swift-dev mailing list as well with the SE number in the email >> title. >> >> The rest of the unimplemented proposals do not make Swift 3. This >> leaves us with the question of what to do with them. These proposals >> represent the known and reviewed changes we want to make to Swift, >> but inevitably there will also be changes that we don't even know >> about today that we will want to take into Swift that can impact >> core source stability. That said, we also have a very strong desire >> to maintain source compatibility with Swift 3 and Swift 4 as much as >> possible to provide some stability for which Swift users to build >> upon. The challenge of course is reconciling these diametrically >> opposing goals: maintaining source stability while having the >> ability to incorporate more core (and important) language changes >> that are possibly source-breaking. >> >> The Swift team at Apple has reflected on this and decided what it >> "means" for Swift 3 to be source compatible with Swift 4 and later >> releases going forward. Our goal is to allow app developers to >> combine a mix of Swift modules (e.g., SwiftPM packages), where each >> module is known to compile with a specific version of the language >> (module A works with Swift 3, module B works with Swift 3.1, etc.), >> then combine those modules into a single binary. The key feature is >> that a module can be migrated from Swift 3 to 3.1 to 4 (and beyond) >> independently of its dependencies. >> >> While the exact details of how we will accomplish this feat are >> still being discussed, here is a sketch of how this will likely work >> in the Swift 4 timeframe. The key enabler is a new compiler flag >> that indicates the language version to compile for (e.g., similar to >> the clang -std=c99 flag). The compiler flag will be provided by the >> build system you are using (e.g., Xcode, SwiftPM, etc.) on a >> per-module basis: >> >> For language syntax/semantics, the compiler can use the language >> mode to properly implement the language version being used by a >> module. >> >> For the Standard Library, additive and subtractive changes are >> easily handled (the former by just adding them, the later by using >> deprecation techniques). For semantics changes, things are much more >> complicated, and will need further study. >> >> The great thing about this approach is that a single Swift 4 >> compiler is building all of the sources in an application. This >> allows us to roll out this approach before achieving full ABI >> stability — something that will be a goal for Swift 4, but is >> impractical to achieve for a Swift 3.x release. It also provides us >> a general framework in the future for handling source compatibility >> as Swift evolves. >> >> To make this more concrete, suppose an application is written to use >> Swift 4, but uses packages via SwiftPM that are written using Swift >> 3. A single compiler would build both the app and the packages — >> thus ensuring that all the compiled sources are binary >> compatible. It would not be the case that a framework built with the >> Swift 3 compiler could be used by an app built using the Swift 4 >> compiler. That kind of library binary stability (ABI) will be a key >> goal of the Swift 4 release. >> >> These constraints mentioned above will serve as scaffolding for >> Swift 4 development. Discussion about Swift 4 commences on >> Monday. Ahead of that, Chris Lattner plans to send out thoughts from >> the Core team on some of the known key goals (and non-goals) for the >> release. In the meantime, the focus over the next couple days should >> be taking stock of what has landed for Swift 3 and to see if any of >> the proposals mentioned above are close to being completed or are >> truly out of scope. >> >> Thank you again to everyone for making Swift 3 such as fantastic release! >> >> Ted >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolut...@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolut...@swift.org> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
