[swift-evolution] Proposal: label-only constructors

[ilya]

Good point on that. I still think the best solution is to take the existing
syntax of


struct Key {
    init(forRSA:Void) { /* */ }
    init(forCurve25519:Void) { /* */ }
    init(forAES:Void) { /* */ }
}

let a = Key(forRSA: ())

or

let empty: Void = ()
let c = Key(forAES: empty)

and make it somewhat easier to read.  Perhaps

let b = Key(forCurve25519: _ )

I think many people will read Key(forAES) as Key.init(_: forAES), so that
may be not the best expression here.



On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Drew Crawford <drew at sealedabstract.com>
wrote:

>
> On Dec 13, 2015, at 7:13 AM, ilya <ilya.nikokoshev at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You can easily call a private parametrized init from a class function
> though.
>
>
> Sure, but we're just shuffling the deck.  We've gone from a bad public API
> to a bad private API.
>
> Actually, it's worse, because we now have BOTH a bad private API AND a bad
> public API.  There is a reason that NSData.dataWithData(...) is a Swift
> compile error.
>
> The (ab)use of class functions as constructors is a holdover from ObjC
> times.  If you want to make an instance in Swift, you should type
> ClassName( and see what autocomplete suggests; you should not have to read
> through the documentation of class functions to see if they are secretly
> constructors that have been filed at the wrong shelf in the library.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20151213/f4519d2e/attachment.html>