[swift-evolution] [Review] Require self for accessing instance members

Wed Dec 16 17:21:44 CST 2015

* What is your evaluation of the proposal?

A strong -1. I understand the argument but believe it's a matter of style
that should not be enforced by the compiler.

* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to
Swift?

No. The few times implicit self has caused me to lose a few minutes
troubleshooting would have been better addressed with improved diagnostics
and error messaging (these few times were a result of me trying to be too
clever). I agree with others that enforcing self is the job of a linter
and/or in-house style guide.

* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Overall no. I believe it reduces expressiveness (a major tenet according to
https://swift.org/about/#swiftorg-and-open-source) and adds noise. While
explicit self can add clarity at the point of use, I do not believe it's
worth the noise and enforcing in all cases.

* If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature,
how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

I've written Ruby and Python extensively and value Ruby's expressive nature
over Python's explicit proliferation of self.

* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading,
or an in-depth study?

I read the entire thread and participated throughout.

At the time review began, I counted 5 explicit yeas and 12 explicit nays
(as well as a few implicit nays).

Stephen

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:54 PM, T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>     -1. I vote against this proposal. I believe that a linter and/or an in
> house code guide is the best place to manage this.
>
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
> to Swift?
>     I think that it is a significant concern but, as I stated above, best
> handled with tooling.
> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>     No. The current Swift behavior around this issue is clear and is
> reasonable to many.
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading,
> or an in-depth study?
>     I have followed the thread and have had this discussion many times.
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:47 PM, T.J. Usiyan <griotspeak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Creating that summary seems like it would be a large burden to place on
>> whoever manages the review. I don't think that that is worth the effort
>> when the responses *are* readily available.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Nick Shelley via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>> All of the prior swift-evolution commentary on this proposal (which is
>>>> nearing the 100-message mark) will also be considered, of course!
>>>
>>>
>>> It is my opinion that the proposal should encapsulate as much of that
>>> discussion as possible so every reviewer doesn't have to read every comment
>>> in that thread. The current proposal is wildly one-sided and seems to only
>>> reflect the opinion of its author and those who agree with the proposal. I
>>> created a Pull Request (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/59,
>>> still not merged and no comments as to why) to more fairly represent the
>>> single counter-argument pointed out in the proposal, but others in the
>>> mailing list expressed concern that none of the other downsides of the
>>> proposal are represented at all.
>>>
>>> Is my (and others') desire to have the proposal contain an accurate
>>> representation of the main points of the community discussion off base? Is
>>> the main purpose of the proposal to be a sales pitch for an idea, even if
>>> it includes building up and tearing down straw-man versions of the
>>> arguments brought forth by the opposition? I'm asking with sincere
>>> curiosity because I can't seem to find a good description of the purpose of
>>> the proposal in my research of how the evolution process works.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for clarifying these points for me.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All of the prior swift-evolution commentary on this proposal (which is
>>>> nearing the 100-message mark) will also be considered, of course!
>>>>
>>>> - Doug
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Swift community,
>>>>
>>>> The review of “Require self for accessing instance members” begins now
>>>> and runs through Sunday, December 20th. The proposal is available here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0009-require-self-for-accessing-instance-members.md
>>>>
>>>> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All
>>>> reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>
>>>> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the
>>>> review manager.
>>>>
>>>> What goes into a review?
>>>>
>>>> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
>>>> through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of
>>>> Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to
>>>> answer in your review:
>>>>
>>>> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>>> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
>>>> to Swift?
>>>> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>>>> * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar
>>>> feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>>>> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
>>>> reading, or an in-depth study?
>>>>
>>>> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Doug Gregor
>>>> Review Manager
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20151216/3b4208de/attachment.html>