> On Jul 11, 2016, at 11:22 PM, Mark Lacey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> If this is relating to implementation details of the standard library, then >> it should be omitted from the proposal. The following paragraph also makes >> sense to revise if you drop this: >> "Additionally the standard library has approximately a half a dozen >> locations where optionals are compared to non-optional values which will >> need to be updated to explicitly cast one operand to an optional.” >> > > Thanks for the great feedback. I have most of it addressed, but I’m not sure > what you’re referring to with “If this is relating to implementation details > of the standard library…”? Do you mean the functions I called out that need > to be added? > > I can remove that, but I thought it was worth calling out despite the fact > that they are just overloads. If it’s not necessary to do so, I’ll delete > that section (although there aren’t many details left in the “Detailed > design” at that point).
I’m referring to this part of the proposal: "Additionally the standard library has approximately a half a dozen locations where optionals are compared to non-optional values which will need to be updated to explicitly cast one operand to an optional.” I’m just saying that the internal implementation details of the standard library are typically considered part of an evolution proposal, only the public API impact. -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
