[swift-evolution] Custom didSet methods

[cocoadev at charlessoft.com]

On 2016-01-12 23:45, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Dave via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> What KVO did was to offer an NSKeyValueSetMutationKind enum 
>>> containing constants for insertion and removal as well as OR and AND 
>>> operations with other sets. If you don't want to do that, another 
>>> possible interface could be to provide two ranges, one representing 
>>> the range of the affected region before the change, and another 
>>> representing it afterward. If you had an empty range for "before" and 
>>> a non-empty range for "after", that would represent an insertion. The 
>>> reverse would be removal, and anything else would be a replacement of 
>>> some kind.
>>> 
>>> Charles
>> Also, good points. I guess my idea then is:
>> “did/willUpdate”, “did/willInsert”, and “did/willRemove” for when you 
>> don’t care about which element was changed (and for types that aren’t 
>> indexable anyway)
>> “did/willUpdateAtIndex”, “did/WillInsertAtIndex”, and 
>> “did/WillRemoveAtIndex” for single elements
>> “did/willUpdateInRange”, “did/WillInsertInRange”, and 
>> “did/WillRemoveInRange” for multiple elements
>> 
>> That’s a lot of new keywords, though… Oh! What if it was *only* 
>> did/willUpdate, did/willAdd, and did/willRemove, and they were 
>> overloaded with (), (atIndex: Index), and (inRange: Range<Index>) 
>> forms? Like this:
> 
> Just a random comment on this thread:  our desire is to introduce
> property behaviors, and “demote” things like property observers into
> library features.  This is great because it makes it much easier to
> extend these capabilities without hacking on the compiler, and will
> allow you to define custom behaviors in your own code.
> 
> I don’t know if the first round of behaviors will actually allow us to
> eliminate willset/didset though, simply given that they need to poke
> at the super implementation.  That said, we’d rather work towards
> fixing those problems: proposals to make the existing property
> observers richer aren’t likely to be accepted.
> 
> -Chris

Is the proposal document for the property behaviors concept available 
online anywhere? I'm intrigued by it, and would like to read about the 
specifics.

Thanks,
Charles