Playing with the future

A few test runs for fun.

Proposal SE-0071. “Allow (most) keywords in member references” is implemented. This allows the use of members after a dot without backticks, e.g. “foo.default”.

Verdict: Not quite ready for prime time. Chris Lattner tweets: “Fwiw, that is the intended design of SE-0071.  It only changes “after the dot”.  You need to use back ticks after [v]ar”

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 9.23.41 AM

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 9.58.10 AM

Proposal SE-0046. Function parameters now have consistent labelling across all function parameters.

Verdict: Working.

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 9.27.00 AM

Proposal SE-0037. “Comments are now treated as whitespace when determining whether an operator is prefix, postfix, or binary. Comments can no longer appear between a unary operator and its argument.”

Verdict: Working.

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 9.35.53 AM

Proposal SE-0031: inout now decorates types, not labels

Verdict: Working

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 9.39.41 AM


  • SE-0071: I don’t think that requirement for backpacks in the declaration is a disaster. You only have to but the backpacks in once in the declaration.

    Is it naughty to point out that your postfix ++ implementation had a bug? It’s supposed to return the value of the operand as it was before incrementing it.

    • s/backpacks/backticks/

    • I’m pretty sure I’ve posted “real” ++ prefix/postfix implementations on the blog before (or at least somewhere public) so I figured no big deal.