<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Sorry if this has been discussed and I missed it, but Scala and Kotlin both support a compact function-like class declaration syntax for simple "case classes".</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Just took some time to read more deeply and would have added a reference to Kotlin on my own — I think their approach of solving the problem from the other direction (turning parameters into members instead of inferring parameters for properties) feels quite natural and avoids many problems; but unless the decision to remove var parameters is revised, I think it's unfortunate to introduce them in another context.</div><div class="">We shouldn't forget that initializers in Swift already are a quite huge and complicated topic (required, convenience, when to call super…) with big potential to confuse newcomers; so I'd recommend to be careful introducing new keywords and concepts that aren't useful in other places and rather stick with a less complete solution that is lightweight and elegant:</div><div class="">It could be considered to simply don't address parts of the problem in the language at all, but encourage better tools to manage the boilerplate.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Merry christmas!</div><div class="">Tino</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>