[swift-evolution] Draft proposal: multi-property assignment .= operator

Jo Albright me at jo2.co
Sun Jan 10 23:02:21 CST 2016

I don’t know if this is too different from what you are wanting to do. But this can done with Swift now.

https://github.com/joalbright/Inlinit (can be used as a CocoaPod or with SwiftPM)

struct Person: Inlinit {

    var age: Int = 0
    var name: String?


// initialize & set properties
var me = Person {

    $0.name = "Jo"
    $0.age = 32


// update properties
me <- {

    $0.age = 30
    $0.name = "John"


Designer . Developer .  Nerd 
Jo Albright

> On Jan 10, 2016, at 10:05 PM, Angelo Villegas via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> I think the "<-" operator is better than ".=". This and cascade style assignment would be a good team for me. 
> object <- {
>     prop1: value1,
>     prop2: value2
> }
> _____________________________
> From: Tino Heth via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>>
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 7:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Draft proposal: multi-property assignment .= operator
> To: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.ca <mailto:michel.fortin at michelf.ca>>
> Cc: swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>>
> Methods like "setValuesForKeysWithDictionary" can indeed be very handy — but its name is quite verbose, and imho that isn't that bad:
> It's hard to guess the meaning of ".=" (I'd prefer "<-" instead, but I guess depending on the background of the reader, this may be as hard to understand)
> A method with the functionality would be nice, and the possibility of compile time checking would make it better than the variant with dictionaries — but to make the check working, this method would need special treatment by the compiler, and that would appear strange to me.
> You've written about the older proposal sketches for cascading; have you seen the following idea?
> object.{
> property1 = 1
> property2 = "a"
> }
> It is a less flexible in some aspect (the tuple in your draft could be created by a function call*), but is even more concise (not much, though) and can be used for more than assigning properties.
> Best regards,
> Tino
> * If you continue with your draft, I suggest to explore this possibility further: With a function to turn members of an existing object into a tuple, or the option to selectively remove elements from a tuple, it could be a handy way to create copies.
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/20160111/9dcd6353/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list