make 'and finally' it's own section

Author: jessesquires

_posts/2016-01-07-issue-4.md

@@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ Doug Gregor has submitted a [proposal](https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolu
 
 Doug Gregor [notes](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160104/005312.html) some surprising behavior when extending an `@objc` protocol — the members of the `extension` are not exposed to the Objective-C runtime. 😳 Luckily, I haven't run into this bug myself.
 
-### Other
+### Finally
 
-Finally, is `?.` the ["call-me-maybe" operator](https://twitter.com/uint_min/status/683532142677114880) in Swift? **That's it for this week!**
+And finally — is `?.` the ["call-me-maybe" operator](https://twitter.com/uint_min/status/683532142677114880) in Swift? **That's it for this week!**
 
 {% include orig_pub.html %}

_posts/2016-01-21-issue-6.md

@@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ Davide Italiano [announced](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-dev/Week-of-
 
 The second review of the *"Swift Testing (Package Manager)"* proposal [has begun](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-build-dev/Week-of-Mon-20160111/000243.html)! (Revised proposal [here](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0019-package-manager-testing.md)). 🎉
 
+### Finally
+
 And finally, in case you missed the fun:
 
 > Q: As an Objective-C programmer, I'm not very good at dieting. Why?

_posts/2016-01-28-issue-7.md

@@ -61,5 +61,7 @@ greater than the sum of the build times of the pieces, and much more so when
 the optimization is turned on.  We can make a conjecture that the optimizer is
 not scaling well with the module size.
 
+### Finally
+
 And finally — if you feel like Swift is changing too fast or if you are simply interested in trying something new, may I suggest [TrumpScript](https://github.com/samshadwell/TrumpScript)? 😂 Let's make programming great again.™
 

_posts/2016-02-04-issue-8.md

@@ -54,4 +54,6 @@ Related to this review, Dave Abrahams started an [exploratory thread](https://li
 
 Chris Lattner [revealed](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160201/009015.html) that at one point the Swift team briefly discussed using `‽` (the [interrobang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrobang)) as the sugar for `ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional`. 🤓
 
+### Finally
+
 And finally — has Bjarne ever [made the mistake](https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/1183#commitcomment-15864521) of forgetting the `~` for C++ destructors? Jacob Bandes-Storch [saved the day](https://twitter.com/dgregor79/status/694988732718448642) with this massive [pull request](https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/1183/files). 😂

_posts/2016-02-18-issue-10.md

@@ -80,4 +80,6 @@ Speaking of guidelines, Dave also [announced](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/
 
 Jordan Rose [pitched an idea](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160208/009624.html) for overridable members in extensions. *"Today, methods introduced in an extension of a class cannot override or be overridden unless the method is (implicitly or explicitly) marked `@objc`. This proposal lifts the blanket restriction while still enforcing safety."* So far, there's positive support for this.
 
+### Finally
+
 And finally — compiler crashes are fixed [pretty swiftly these days](https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/c83be882be0dee308fbc5993445bb966eee96734). 😎

_posts/2016-02-25-issue-11.md

@@ -94,4 +94,6 @@ Kevin Ballard [shared an idea](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution
 
 Joe Groff [pitched an idea](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160222/010843.html) on *flattening the function type of unapplied instance methods*. It's a bit dense and difficult to summarize, so I'll just refer you to his initial message. 😁
 
+### Finally
+
 And finally — [the headline writes itself](https://twitter.com/jckarter/status/702185887296163840). *"Three Decades Later, Apple Flipping a New Bird at IBM"*. 😂

_posts/2016-03-03-issue-12.md

@@ -86,4 +86,6 @@ Chris Lattner made a [brief pitch](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolu
 
 Erica Sadun has [started a discussion](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-build-dev/Week-of-Mon-20160222/000289.html) on disambiguating Swift Package Manager naming conflicts (draft proposal [here](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/182/)). She suggests using reverse domain names to fully quality packages, for example `import org.sadun.SwiftString`. Max Howell's [initial response](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-build-dev/Week-of-Mon-20160222/000290.html) was positive. 😎
 
+### Finally
+
 And finally — if you didn't know, the [try! Swift conference](http://www.tryswiftconf.com/en) is happening this week in Tokyo. Huge thanks to [@NatashaTheRobot](https://twitter.com/NatashaTheRobot) and the organizers for putting together such a great event. 🙌 Lots of familiar faces from the community are here, and it has been awesome. You can follow the fun on Twitter at [#tryswiftconf](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23tryswiftconf). I even got to [meet Ash Furrow](https://twitter.com/jesse_squires/status/705034656987484160). 😂

_posts/2016-03-10-issue-13.md

@@ -90,4 +90,6 @@ Dmitri Gribenko [posted](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-
 
 Joe Groff [started a thread](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160307/012099.html) on universal equatability, hashability, and comparability. He outlines how and why Swift could provide universal behavior for `==`, `hashValue`, and/or `<`. Feedback is mixed with concerns over correctness of default/generated definitions. [Austin Zheng](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160307/012116.html) argued against this idea, while [William Dillon](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160307/012197.html) gave it a +1.
 
+### Finally
+
 And finally &mdash; Slava *finally* [caught something](https://twitter.com/slava_pestov/status/707103183441494017) useful in a [code review](https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/aacdf62e8b059788b4994063c7fc2f76b2aa60de). 😂

_posts/2016-03-17-issue-14.md

@@ -86,4 +86,6 @@ But there's always Antitypical's [Result](https://github.com/antitypical/Result)
 
 Joe Groff [resumed](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160314/012546.html) a previous discussion on compiler directives and Erica Sadun [drafted](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160314/012557.html) a new proposal for this, *Expanding Build Configuration Tests for   Simulator and Device targets*. *"This proposal adds `#if target(simulator)` and `#if target(device)` to distinguish whether application code is compiled to run in a simulated environment or on a device."*
 
+### Finally
+
 And finally — still not sure about protocol-oriented programming? Try side-effect-oriented programming, but be sure to use value types. [Once it's copied, it's not your problem anymore.](https://twitter.com/jckarter/status/707999869831491584) 😂

template/YYYY-MM-DD-issue-N.md

@@ -27,3 +27,7 @@ author: <#author#>
 ### Mailing lists
 
 > TODO:
+
+### Finally
+
+> TODO: