Added support for swift 3.0 (DEVELOPMENT-SNAPSHOT-2016-03-24-a)

[ratranqu]

Hi,

I added support for swift 3.0 (DEVELOPMENT-SNAPSHOT-2016-03-24-a) using macros checking the swift version, so should work both with 2.2 and (current) 3.0 dev.

Changes are mostly about keeping up with the swift-3-api-guidelines induced changes.

[kylef]

Instead of using a negative, what about about using a different comparison? I think this is more readable and clear.

#if swift(<3.0)

[ratranqu]

I used #if !swift(>=3.0) because that's what seems to be common in other reps. I think the rational is that when you only have some typealias to do, you want to clean the bulk of the code to comply to the latest version, so that it's cheaper to clean when you want to drop the older version.

continuing to use that style for the other cases was a matter of consistency.

if you still prefer the #if swift(<3.0), I think keeping the other way for typealias is best. what do you think?

EDIT: forget my remark abt keeping the other way... :-o

[kylef]

Ah, I just noticed this change is for the dependency CatchingFire. The changes would need to be made there and released to be added here. https://github.com/mrackwitz/CatchingFire

[ratranqu]

Actually... swift(<3.0) doesn't seem to be legal... will revert to !swift(=>3.0)...

[Danappelxx]

I think the most clear one is #if swift(>=2.2). Instead of saying "if
it's not 3.0", it's saying "if it's 2.2 or less" which seems to be the most
clear (and legal) way.

[ratranqu]

@Danappelxx what needs to be expressed is that for any version above or equal to 3.0, the api changes apply. So using swift(>=2.2) will not work. For instance, if version 2.2.1 is released, the code will break.

[Danappelxx]

You should be worrying about backwards compatibility, not forwards. What you said about 2.2.1 is also wrong, the comparison only checks for major and minor version (not patch). It's definitely a matter of opinion, though - up to Kyle to make the final decision.

[kylef]

I think the 3.0 check is better, since there could be a Swift 2.3 which would be syntax compatible with Swift 2.2.

[kylef]

@ratranqu I'm going to find some time one evening soon to make the tests run on Linux during CI, I'd like to test on Linux and both Swift 2.x and 3.x to ensure they both work before we move forward.

[ratranqu]

@kylef: Thx. I've also submitted a PR for CatchingFire this morning.

[kylef]

Looks like not activity at all on mrackwitz/CatchingFire#5. Anyway, I've made some changes to master to be able to run the tests on Linux and refactored some things.

Would you be interested in rebasing this over from master and updating @ratranqu? If not I can take over.

We can now support testing on Linux in CI using multiple versions of Swift. We can add the following to .travis.yml:

env:
- SWIFT_VERSION=2.2.1
- SWIFT_VERSION=3.0-PREVIEW-2

Along with the following to switch to Linux:

language: generic
sudo: required
dist: trusty

[ratranqu]

if you’re willing to wait a few weeks, I will do it. I don’t want to commit to anything sooner as I’m pretty busy atm.

else, please to take over.

let me know.

On 19 Jul 2016, at 23:54, Kyle Fuller [email protected] wrote:

Looks like not activity at all on mrackwitz/CatchingFire#5 mrackwitz/CatchingFire#5. Anyway, I've made some changes to master to be able to run the tests on Linux and refactored some things.

Would you be interested in rebasing this over from master and updating @ratranqu https://github.com/ratranqu? If not I can take over.

We can now support testing on Linux in CI using multiple versions of Swift. We can add the following to .travis.yml:

env:

• SWIFT_VERSION=2.2.1
• SWIFT_VERSION=3.0-PREVIEW-2
  Along with the following to switch to Linux:

language: generic
sudo: required
dist: trusty
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub #15 (comment), or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQPPLYIUHyVHy59eFlmbn0BTEN4mjSAHks5qXUezgaJpZM4H84ec.

[kylef]

Now that Swift 3.0 is out (in GM). I've finished this up via #19.

Thanks for your work here @ratranqu.