[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0036: Requiring Leading Dot Prefixes for Enum Instance Member Implementations
matthew at anandabits.com
Fri Apr 1 16:19:02 CDT 2016
> On Apr 1, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> Hello Swift community,
>> The review of SE-0036 "Requiring Leading Dot Prefixes for Enum Instance
>> Member Implementations" begins now and runs throughApril 5, 2016. The
>> proposal is available here:
>> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews
>> should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
>> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the
>> review manager. When replying, please try to keep the proposal link at
>> the top of the message:
>> Proposal link:
>> Reply text
>> Other replies
>> goes into a review?
>> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
>> through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction
>> of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might
>> want to answer in your review:
>> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>> Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
>> Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>> If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how
>> do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>> How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading,
>> or an in-depth study?
>> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
>> Thank you,
>> Doug Gregor
>> Review Manager
> This proposal seems to me like it's failing to fix the underlying problem,
> which is that people don't understand the leading dot rules, and papering
> over the problem by making the rule less consisten, with different behavior
> for enums and other type-scoped (static/class) entities. It doesn't seem
> like a principled solution to me.
This proposal doesn’t change the leading dot rules at all. What it does is make the rules for referencing static members *more* consistent than they are now, removing the special case for enum cases.
"Enumeration cases are essentially static not instance type members. Unlike static members in structures and classes, enumeration cases can be mentioned in initializers and instance methods without referencing a fully qualified type. This makes little sense. In no other case can an instance implementation directly access a static member."
I believe at one point in Swift’s history all static members could be referenced directly. This proposal seems like it is cleaning up a case that was missed when that changed.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution