“translate scheme”

When I click Run on the [AppName] WatchKit App scheme, the status window says Running [AppName] WatchKit App on [Phone name]. It stays like that for about 45 seconds. Then it says Finished running [AppName] WatchKit App on [Phone name].Did the 'trust this computer' diaglog ever show on the watch? Unpairing and then re-pairing and restarting Xcode should have gotten you that prompt. The symptoms you are experiencing seem to indicate that this dialog was not presented after you upgraded.

If you're specifically referring to how to initate a call from your apple watch app code. Check out the Phone Links URL scheme reference that is now avalible is watchOS 2.0https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/watchos/featuredarticles/iPhoneURLScheme_Reference/PhoneLinks/PhoneLinks.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40007899-CH6-SW1

Hey KMT,- Note I originally dragged in a few png screen shots, but they don't actually display when I save them.When I create a new single view app in Xcode Version 6.3.2 (6D2105) the project pane above targets xcode sets the iOS Deployment Target to 8.3, and in the Scheme drop down, iOS Device is the only item available. When selecting the Drop down, there are no Simulators at all. But when I change the iOS Deploy Target to 8.2, I can then select various simulators.In my preferences I don't have 8.3 simulators, and can't download any as there are no options to do so.Do you have 8.3 Simulators? I did notice this behavior on my work Mac as well, so I figure that Apple overlooked this in the build.Perhaps I need to delete Xcode, and re-install it? Note: I actually routinely download the new version from the Dev center and not thruthe App Store.Thanks for lending your thoughts...

Yes it is but the tel: URL scheme is currently broken on watchOS 2 beta 1.

You have to rewrite but instead of starting from scratch:Keep both projects openComment out all of the Obj-C files/* this is how you comment out multiple lines*/Then copy and paste onto the Swift filesUn-comment out section by section of your code and see what errors you get.By reading the free Ibook (A programmers guide to Swift, or something of the like) you can see where the basic syntax differences are and ajust your code accordinglyFor any more complex code structuers that the book or you can't figure out how to translate to Swift; take those sections and ask in the fourms how to translate them and I'm sure you'll get help.

Ha. 🙂Lisp/Scheme is very cool, but I don't miss functions that end like this: )))))))), or nested lets drifting rightward. And how to blend the Lisp syntax style with OO syntax style (object.method, obj.property), which is often very clean, and useful for IDE auto-completion. One call looks fine. (obj.method 1 2 3) But now chain calls on that. ((obj.method 1 2 3).method2 a b). Yuck.Robps. I first wrote obj.m e t h, but it censored it. See: obj.****. No Breaking Bad discussion here.

AHA! Edit the scheme per https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Miscellaneous/Conceptual/MetalProgrammingGuide/Dev-Technique/Dev-Technique.html and set GPU Frame Capture to Metal. Looks like Automatic doesn't work at the moment (or at least doesn't do what it would imply).Note: I hit this when running a SpriteKit project, so it may not be a problem for those using Metal directly.

It seemed to work for me in a playground (I got different print results more like your Obj-C example), but maybe the timing is different in an actual app.What are you actually trying to do? If we knew then perhaps we can suggest a construct that actually achieves it.Note that in your original Swift code, this: dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue()) { object = nil }does basically nothing, since 'object' is going to be released by the containing scope immediately afterwards. All you're doing is delaying the release until whatever backlog the main queue has at that moment (probably none).If you're just trying to preserve the lifetime of 'object' until the first step of 'myMethod' (the first print) has finished execution, you should be able to do it by putting the last step (the second print) in a separate closure that doesn't capture the parameter, as I showed earlier.The other thing to keep in mind is that you are (effectively) tried to reason about retain counts in the logic of this code fragment, and such