[swift-evolution] [RFC] #Self

Chris Lattner clattner at apple.com
Tue May 10 16:01:37 CDT 2016

On May 10, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com> wrote:
>>> That's a fair critique.  Having a more distinct name will make it clear that the behavior is completely unrelated to Self.
>>> How about #Type or #StaticType?
>> Either of those would make more sense to me than using # as a distinguisher for dynamic vs static.  This isn’t what we use # for.
> Another suggestion was StaticSelf.  Any opinion on that one?  Also, do you think we should just drop the # altogether?
> If we find a name we can agree on and there is no significant opposition is this a proposal that could make it into Swift 3?  I would be willing to write one if that is the case.

I haven’t thought about this in depth and completely misunderstood the proposal before :-)

If I understand, this is simply a shortcut to avoid having to spell out the static type name, most useful when copying/pasting code or when the type name is long.  That argues for keeping it short (a knock against StaticSelf).  Also, I think it would make sense to drop the #: Self doesn’t have it for example, and that is the closest relative.

That said, I’m not sure I understand the concrete use-cases.  When is this concept important?  When is “Self” not good enough?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160510/9bb7f992/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list