[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy

[Krystof Vasa]

If lazy becomes @lazy, shouldn't dynamic become @dynamic as well? They both don't change the type as argued in the proposal, it only changes the way the value is accessed.

Krystof

> On May 19, 2016, at 4:19 AM, Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 	* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> 
> -1. Too early to optimize this. I would also be opposed to renaming didSet/willSet to lowercased preemptively because of the sake of renaming. 
> I think property behaviors should declare their own naming and syntax conventions (and be accepted in a version of Swift) before we start changing these API. 
> 
> 
>> 	* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
> 
> No because we do not know what property behaviors would look like for sure. 
> 
>> 	* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
> 
> No. 
>> 	* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
> 
> n/a
>> 	* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
> 
> I read this proposal and other mail treads about API that will be affected by property behaviors like didSet/ willSet and lazy 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution