[swift-evolution] [RFC] #Self

[Thorsten Seitz]

> Am 10.05.2016 um 18:41 schrieb Timothy Wood via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>:
> 
> 
>> On May 10, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com> wrote:
>> Yep, understood.  It's perfectly clear to me but I understand why Chris is concerned about it having potential to confuse people.  It is a pretty subtle difference especially since Self and #Self are the same in some contexts.  In any case, I would be content to live with any name that wins out.
> 
> Ah, OK -- it sounds like we just differ on what would be least confusing =)
> 
> The other proposed name of #StaticSelf, seems like it would be very clear (if a bit redundant and longer than needed, once you’ve come across it once or twice). I could certainly live with #StaticSelf.

In that case StaticSelf would be sufficient IMHO. The # should only be needed to distinguish between Self and #Self.

So:

Self, #Self
Self, StaticSelf
DynamicSelf, StaticSelf


As far as I understand #Self should be the type of the implementor (ImplementorSelf?) or conforming type (ConformingSelf?).
How would this work with default methods?

protocol A {
	func f() -> #Self
	init()
}

extension A {
	func f() -> #Self { return init() }	// what type has #Self here?
}

class C : A {}

let c = C().f()	// what type has c here?

-Thorsten