[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Property behaviors
colin at springsandstruts.com
Tue Dec 22 00:00:40 CST 2015
Really interesting thread, and great work on the proposal so far, Joe. I have some additional thoughts but I wanted to chime in with one thing first:
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:08 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> :-( I'm worried about increasing the size of the language this much. I really want to be able to say "behaviors are just syntactic sugar for declaring accessors and storage, and then everything else behaves normally". This makes them another entirely orthogonal decl kind, like operators.
>>> I'd prefer not to have a new decl as well, if that was the best choice. However, it's still just syntactic sugar for declaring accessors and storage.
>> I think there’s value for users in being able to group and scope the components associated with a particular behavior, so IMO it’s worth it. Overall, it makes usage of the language less complex in practice.
> I tend to agree. There is definite value in having really independent things scoped out and cordoned off in their own areas.
Agreed. For instance, it makes it much easier for tooling to know something is a behavior if it can just look for a keyword, rather than having to infer it from use, or some function declaration pattern or something.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution