[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Instance var/let property as type member could be unbound function

[Richard Ross]

+1. This would be very nice to have when dealing with computed properties.
--
Richard

> On Mar 4, 2016, at 1:24 AM, Tikitu de Jager via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> That is, given
> 
>    extension Int : CustomStringConvertible {
>      var description: Swift.String {
>        get {}
>      }
>    }
> 
> my proposal is to expose
> 
>    Int.description
> 
> as a function with type
> 
>    (Int) -> String
> 
> This would make var/let properties behave more similarly to func properties, where given
> 
> extension Int : PartOfRandomAccessIndexType {
>  func successor() -> Swift.Int
> }
> 
> we have
> 
>    Int.successor
> 
> exposed with type
> 
>    (Int) -> () -> Int
> 
> Making var/let properties behave "the same" looks more consistent to me, but that's as a naive Swift user with no real compiler/language-design experience. For the same reason I can't see whether this would impact the ABI, whether it's remotely feasible, and even whether what looks like "the same" behaviour to me is *really* semantically equivalent. So if there is some interest in this idea I'd be happy to work up a formal proposal, but I thought I would test the waters first.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tikitu
> 
> -- 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.logophile.org_&d=CwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=Ezje1IF3xGXfUMfsj4fBc7oM7BcJys1dhQ6psfXzLMU&m=fhXGdPVgIvFmabL5VwojkDaC2y5kpJuJHE_JZpMectU&s=Ur-6l8yLJEQa0VziT4tk_Lj7-1MKmFodTJRiJb9UjTA&e= @tTikitu
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.swift.org_mailman_listinfo_swift-2Devolution&d=CwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=Ezje1IF3xGXfUMfsj4fBc7oM7BcJys1dhQ6psfXzLMU&m=fhXGdPVgIvFmabL5VwojkDaC2y5kpJuJHE_JZpMectU&s=TScYfkqqnKKQN9qKCwAjV3FO2TuNl69Yk61Ad6L8EMY&e=