[swift-evolution] [Draft] Anonymous Enum Cases

[Adrian Zubarev]

Are anonymous enum cases still in Swift 4 scope?



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 9. März 2017 um 15:00:48, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org) schrieb:

+1. Combining this with overloaded cases will be very nice for some kinds of enums.

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Daniel Duan via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> During review for the first revision of SE-0155, Dave Abraham suggested that we should allow enum cases without base names. So here’s a (rough) draft of a proposal for this feature. Please read and share your thoughts!
>  
> # Anonymous Enum Cases
>  
> * Proposal: [SE-NNNN](NNNN-anonymous-enum-cases.md)
> * Authors: [Daniel Duan](https://github.com/dduan)
> * Review Manager: TBD
> * Status: **Awaiting review**
>  
> ## Introduction
>  
> This proposal adds anonymous cases to Swift's enum.
>  
> ## Motivation
>  
> Naming things is a tough task for programmer. This is one merit of features such
> as anonymous function and tuples: users can use them in a limited scope and skip
> the mind burden of coming up with names. We can expand this convenience to enums
> by allowing user to declare, construct and pattern match anonymous cases.
>  
> ## Proposed solution
>  
> Add anonymous cases to Swift's enum.
>  
> ## Detailed design
>  
> Anonymous enums can be declared with this syntax:
>  
> ```swift
> enum Foo {
> case (Int)
> case (label0: Int, label1: String)
> }
> ```
>  
> Anonymous case without any associated values is not allowed.
>  
> Anonymous case values can be constructed with constructors with the enum's name
> being their base name. Following the example:
>  
> ```swift
> Foo(42) // constructs `Foo` case corresponding to `case (Int)`
> Foo(label0: 0, labe1: "hello") // value of type Foo, 2nd case.
> Foo(label0: label1:)(0, "hello") // constructs the same value, SE-0155 syntax
> ```
>  
> For pattern matching, rules remain the same as regular cases, execpt, naturally,
> the base name shall be skipped.
>  
> ```swift
> case .(let x) = Foo(42) // x has value 42
> case .(label0: let a, label1: let b) = Foo(label0: 0, label1: "hello") // ok
> ```
>  
> ## Source compatibility
>  
> This is additive. It's fully source compatible with Swift 3.
>  
> ## Effect on ABI stability
>  
> This feature adds new possibilities to symbols exposed by enum declarations.
>  
> ## Effect on API resilience
>  
> ## Alternatives considered
>  
> It may seem "regular" to make user use `_` in place of base name in
> declarations. The author think that's a perspective that only makes sense for
> language designer/compiler implementors. To a user, the syntax chosen in this
> proposal is clear and succinct.
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170315/446b9e02/attachment.html>