> On Oct 1, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Haravikk via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 20:10, Ben Rimmington <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 15:31, Haravikk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 02:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:13 Haravikk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean because not once have you summarised what these alleged
>>>>> "considerations" were; if they exist then you should be able do so, yet
>>>>> all I am hearing is "it was considered", which frankly is not an argument
>>>>> at all as it is entirely without substance.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is not an argument at all. It is a factual statement. The
>>>> objections which you mentioned were also mentioned prior to a decision
>>>> about SE-0185. The community and the core team had an opportunity to view
>>>> those objections. After that time, a decision was made, having considered
>>>> all the stated pros and cons which included the ones that you are now
>>>> repeating. What "considerations" are you looking for?
>>>
>>> Ones with proof that they were ever made! Once again you are stating that
>>> these issues were "considered", yet you show not a single shred of proof
>>> that that was the case. You're asking me to take you at your word but I
>>> have no reason to trust that the problem has been as carefully considered
>>> as you claim.
>>> I was involved in one such discussion and the response from the core team
>>> was frankly pitiful; they did not provide any justification whatsoever.
>>
>> Chris Lattner already said that the core team discussed your concerns:
>>
>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170814/038854.html>
>>
>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170814/038883.html>
>>
>> The original idea was for most types to be *implicitly* equatable and
>> hashable:
>>
>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160307/012099.html>
>>
>> The accepted proposal, with *explicit* declaration of conformance, is a good
>> compromise.
>>
>> Instead of discussing hypothetical issues with SE-0185, we can wait for
>> Swift 4.1 beta.
>
> And as I pointed out this "consideration" was pathetic; he interjected once
> with a flawed argument and was never seen again. The core team has utterly
> failed to justify their decision. It does not prove "consideration"; there
> are no reasoned points, alternatives are never discussed, it is a dictate not
> a discussion.
>
> But fuck it, I no longer care; it is clear to me now that Swift Evolution
> serves no purpose if the core team cannot or will not listen, and on that
> basis if I cannot trust the core team I cannot trust Swift as a language, and
> will not be using it going forward, as the direction it is taking frankly
> undermines any optimism I once had for it.
I’m sad to see the thread go this way. Myself and others who want to make
swift-evolution feel like a place where ideas are heard certainly are sensitive
to individuals getting frustrated. That said, closing out the thread in a way
that clearly violates the code of conduct (and thus the core sense of courtesy
and professionalism we want to maintain on the list) isn’t effective either. I
think the thread should stop here, and remedial actions will be taken to stem
this negative dialogue from continuing.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
