Set of legal characters about swiftinflux HOT 7 CLOSED

How about #23?
I believe the question of whether it's desirable to have a full changelog of language was settled here: 11b593d#commitcomment-6934006

from swiftinflux.

@jklausa I agree we should have a full change log of the language. The point is, nothing actually changed. The documentation merely acknowledges what was a fact already.

There was a good reason to include this before b4, as the Swift team said the set of allowed operators is "in flux", that's why it wasn't documented. It's documented now, so presumably not in flux anymore, but nothing changed either… so should we even put it on the changes list?

I realise it's grey area, that's why I'm asking :) @ksm?

from swiftinflux.

Well, you could argue (and that's exactly what I'm doing right now ;)) that the documentation is also a part of the language. So, if it changed to reflect what was already there, that's a change in language.

There's also a section about reflection - it's also something that's already supported in language, but isn't described anywhere. I would expect when (if?) it ever gets promoted to "official", supported API, such change would be noted here.

from swiftinflux.

Perhaps, but reflection really is in flux — if you diff the std lib header between betas, there were many changes and additions to what supports reflection, etc.

from swiftinflux.

Lots of good points here, but I don't have time now, so I'll get back to you guys later today - evening/night time.

from swiftinflux.

I'm with @jklausa on this one - that documentation is part of the language. Just like documentation is part of some API (i.e. reading an API itself is not enough to make it click, it always needs some documentation).

from swiftinflux.

Fair enough ;)

from swiftinflux.