[swift-evolution] [Review] Require self for accessing instance members
matthew at anandabits.com
Wed Dec 16 21:18:51 CST 2015
You can add me to the nays. I don’t have much to add that hasn’t already been stated.
It’s possible I could be convinced of adding a pragma to help teams that want to adopt this style enforce it. It isn’t possible to convince me that everyone should be required to adopt this style in all of their code.
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Stephen Celis via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Honza Dvorsky <czechboy0 at gmail.com <mailto:czechboy0 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Many people (myself included) already expressed their preference in the discussion that happened before the review, where there were many more yes's. So for the sake of objectivity, I think we should refrain from counting the score half way through the discussion :)
> We all care about the outcome, but it was mentioned upstream that all feedback (including pre-review) is being taken into consideration, which I believe is fair.
> Apologies for any confusion. My count was of the upstream discussion, where I found 5 explicit yeas and many more nays.
> For reference, the upstream thread tally:
> - Rob Napier
> - David Hart
> - Dennis Lysenko
> - Dan Loewenherz
> - Honza Dvorsky
> - Ilya Nikokoshev
> - Mark Knaup
> - Al Skipp
> - Andrey Tarantsov
> - Stephen Celis
> - Erica Sadun
> - Sune Foldager
> - Paul Ossenbruggen
> - Slava Pestov
> - David Rodrigues
> - Ilya Belenkiy
> - Pierre Monod-boca
> (Apologies for any autocorrect name butchering. I tried!)
> There were more that were ambiguous, some seeming to favor implicit, others seeming to prefer explicit but not as a requirement.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution