[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0068: Expanding Swift Self to class members and value types
sebastian at iosphere.de
Thu Apr 21 03:39:03 CDT 2016
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
Generally +1, but disagree on the naming.
> * 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?
Generally, yes. However, I don’t think “Self” is very readable or easily understandable. “dynamicType” on the other hand can hardly be misunderstood. With Self, one first has to know/understand that there is a difference between static and dynamic types, and then know/look up which of these types is returned. With dynamicType, this is clear from the beginning. If you don’t know what a dynamic type is, you will stumble over the word and there’s a much higher chance you’d do the research. I don’t think we should value upper/lowercase consistency higher than readability of the code (including what it actually does).
> * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
ObjC, but I don’t think this compares well, as type lookup at runtime is only available for classes.
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
Read the proposal and all replies that have come in since.
More information about the swift-evolution