[swift-evolution] Support for pure setters

[David James]

Sorry, there already is “set” keyword, but allow it to be used in place of “var”.

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 6:31 PM, David James <davidbjames1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps “pure setters” is a misnomer. Probably more accurate would be to call it a “computed setter”?
> 
> To your point about properties being for lookup, understandable. That’s why I suggested introducing the “set” keyword instead of using var .. set.
> 
> The downside of using a method is it’s just not as convenient/elegant to use than simple assignment.
> 
> David
> 
>> On Jan 7, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Félix Cloutier <felixcca at yahoo.ca <mailto:felixcca at yahoo.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> .NET has them and I never felt that I needed them. For me, a property implies something that can be looked up.
>> 
>> What's the downside of using a method?
>> 
>> Félix
>> 
>>> Le 7 janv. 2016 à 10:47:20, David James via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> a écrit :
>>> 
>>> Currently Swift has computed properties that support get or get and set, but not set only. There are use cases where we would want set only. 
>>> 
>>> For example, toggling a boolean which changes another stored property where it would be overkill to make a method for that. It's more intuitive to just assign a boolean. e.g. myObject.myBoolean = true
>>> 
>>> Another example, setting an object that is introspected in order to create a new object which is then stored on a different property. The property that is stored could be readonly/get, for example. A method for the setter (e.g. setSomething) would not be as intuitive as just a plain assignment (e.g. myObject.something = ..). 
>>> 
>>> Another consideration is that a pure setter would support better information hiding. You may not want the parent object to expose the property. Example scenario: set a property on an object (via assignment), which creates/modifies a stored property based on the passed (set) value, and then pass the parent object to another part of the system which can than read the stored property but not the original set property — i.e. you may not want to expose the original set property to another part of the system.
>>> 
>>> Example:
>>> 
>>> var myProperty:MyClass {
>>>     set {
>>>         …
>>>     }
>>> }
>>> 
>>> One concern is that without ‘get’ there really is no property at all, and perhaps this is the reason that pure setter was never included. However, this does not invalidate the above.
>>> 
>>> As an alternative (to make it more semantically sensible) we could introduce a new keyword ‘set’, so:
>>> 
>>> set myProperty:MyClass {
>>>     ...
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Which would support simple assignment:
>>> 
>>> myObject.myProperty = myOtherObject
>>> 
>>> Finally, it’s important to know that this is still “computed", but only computed on the input, not on the output side.
>>> 
>>> David James
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>> 
> 
> David James
> 

David James

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160107/787dbe06/attachment-0001.html>