[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Make `return` optional in computed properties for a single case

[Vladimir.S]

I really like the proposal in case of properties and functions, but I 
really don't want to have
guard boolean else { "false" }

I feel like `return` is very important part of `guard` statement.
I understand the requirement for consistency with 
properties/closures/functions, but I'll prefer to have some inconsistency 
in language in this case and require `return` for `guard`. And in case I'll 
have to choose all-or-nothig, I'll give -1 for the proposal.

I.e. IMO current `return` in properties and functions is less evil than 
absent of `return` in `guard`.

On 31.05.2016 20:35, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution wrote:
> Here is the draft proposal:
> https://github.com/DevAndArtist/swift-evolution/blob/single_expression_optional_return/proposals/nnnn-single-expression-optional-return.md
>
> Did I covered everything case? If you find some mistakes feel free to
> provide feedback so I can fix the proposal before I submit a PR.
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 31. Mai 2016 um 18:33:09, Leonardo Pessoa via swift-evolution
> (swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>) schrieb:
>
>> +1
>>
>> L
>>
>> On 31 May 2016 at 12:47, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On May 28, 2016, at 3:09 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It isn’t a special case because all other single-statement closures in the language work that way. It’s actually inconsistent now.
>> >
>> > Computed properties aren’t closures so it’s not inconsistent in that sense.  But it is inconsistent in that closures are the *only* value-returning code blocks that are able to use this sugar.  It would be nice to see this sugar consistently allowed everywhere in the language.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> On 28 May 2016, at 09:03, Brian Christensen via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On May 27, 2016, at 13:57, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> The idea is simple:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>     • Can we make return keyword optional in cases like this?
>> >>>>     • Shouldn’t this behave like @autoclosure or @noescape?
>> >>>> type A {
>> >>>>   var characters: [Character] = …
>> >>>>   var string: String { String(self.characters) }
>> >>>>   var count: Int { 42 }
>> >>>> }
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Is this worth a proposal or Swifty enough, what do you think?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sure I could write return, but why do we allow this behavior for @noescape functions like map!?
>> >>>
>> >>> While I am not necessarily against this idea, I do wonder if it’s worth making what’s going on here less obvious simply for the sake of being able to omit a six character keyword. As I understand it, one of the reasons ++/-- were removed was due to the increased "burden to learn Swift as a first programming language.” This is the sort of thing that becomes another one of those special cases that has to be explained to someone new to Swift.
>> >>>
>> >>> /brian
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> >>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> swift-evolution mailing list
>> >> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > swift-evolution mailing list
>> > swift-evolution at swift.org
>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>