[swift-evolution] [Proposal] `return` consistency for single-expressions

[Adrian Zubarev]

Such something went wrong with the `[Stage-2]` annotation? 

-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 17. Februar 2017 um 09:20:41, Adrian Zubarev (adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com) schrieb:

I’d like to revive an additive proposal that couldn’t make it into Swift 3. This proposal has a small improvement to the language compared to other big features currently being proposed. It almost feels like a bug fix rather than a new feature, but it still needs a full and quick review process.

You can read the formatted version here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/608

return consistency for single-expressions

Proposal: SE-NNNN
Author: Adrian Zubarev
Status: Awaiting review
Review manager: TBD
Introduction

Any single-expression closure can omit the return statement. This proposal aims to make this feature more consistent in some other corners of the language.

Original swift-evolution thread: * [Pitch] [Stage–2] return consistency for single-expressions * [Pitch] (Bofore Swift 3) Make return optional in computed properties for a single case

Motivation

Closures can omit the return and have an inferred return type:

let _ = { 42 } // Type: () -> Int

let _ = [1,2,3].map { $0 * 5 } // T == Int
There are also value returning code blocks in the language that feel the same but are inconsistent to the mentioned feature:

// Read-write computed property:
var integer: Int {   
    get { return 2016 }   
    set { /* do some work */ }   
}   

// Read-only computed property:
var string: String { return "hello swift" }   

// Function:
func pi() -> Double {
    return 3.141
}

// Read-Write subscript:
subscript(index: Int) -> Int {
    get { return index % 2 }
    set { /* do some work */ }
}

// Read-only subscript:
subscript(index: Int) -> Int { return index * 2 }
Proposed solution

Make return optional for the following top level code blocks that only contain a single expression:

variable-declaration
getter-setter-block
getter-clause
function-body
subscript-declaration
That will allow us to rewrite the above example to:

// Read-Write computed property:
var integer: Int {   
    get { 2016 }   
    ...
}   

// Read-only computed property:
var string: String { "hello swift" }   

// Function:
func pi() -> Double { 3.141 }

// Read-Write subscript:
subscript(index: Int) -> Int {
    get { index % 2 }
    ...
}

// Read-only subscript:
subscript(index: Int) -> Int { index * 2 }
Possible real world example:

// Today
public struct Character {
      
    public let source: Module.Source
    private let _pointer: UnsafePointer<Swift.Character>
      
    public var value: Swift.Character {
        return self._pointer.pointee
    }
    ...
}

// Rewritten:
public struct Character {
    ...
    public var value: Swift.Character { self._pointer.pointee }
    ...
}
Impact on existing code

None, this change will only relax some existing rules.

Alternatives considered

Leave this as is and live with such inconsistency.



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170217/51382eed/attachment.html>