<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 class="">After reading both your response below and also the proposal rather carefully, I agree that the possible issues I raised are all either not real issues or already addressed; thanks again for crafting the proposal and also for taking the time to reply to so much feedback.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That being said, I can’t shake a feeling that, overall, although I am definitely in favor of something along the lines of this proposal, in its concrete details at present this proposal isn’t really sitting anywhere near even a local-optimum on the `(flexibility,complexity) -> functionality` surface, as it were; it seems like both of these are possible:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- (a) make it a bit more flexible, for a high gain in functionality at a low incremental cost in complexity</div><div class="">- (b) make it a bit less flexible, for a modest loss in functionality and a large drop in complexity</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">…but for (b) it’s just a feeling and I don’t have a specific proposal (this may well be close to a minimum-viable-proposal for such a feature).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For (a) my sense is that although I can understand why you don’t want to even provide the option of specifying an explicit memberwise-parameter list, it really does seem that supporting at least an optional list makes it possible to get a lot more functionality for not much more *actual* complexity; this isn’t incompatible with also supporting an “automatic” option that uses the logic from the proposal where possible.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Here’s a concrete example to illustrate why I’m harping on this point; I apologize for the length, but I think “small-n” examples can often give false intuition into how things will behave in real life:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">class FancyCollectionViewDriver : NSObject, UICollectionViewDataSource, UICollectionViewDelegate /*, etc... */ {</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> let collectionView: UICollectionView</div><div class=""> let contentPresentation: ContentPresentation </div><div class=""> let modelBroker: ModelBroker</div><div class=""> let imageBroker: ImageBroker</div><div class=""> let analyticsSink: AnalyticsSink</div><div class=""> private(set) var currentData: ModelData</div><div class=""> private(set) weak var interactionDelegate: DriverDelegateProtocol?</div><div class=""> // ^ can't be non-optional `unowned let` for reasons,</div><div class=""> // but we expect a non-nil argument in init</div><div class=""><div class=""> // NOTE: numerous private state-tracking variables omitted since we are only focusing on initialization</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> // Present-day initializer, full of boilerplate:</div><div class=""> required init(</div><div class=""> collectionView: UICollectionView, </div><div class=""> contentPresentation: ContentPresentation,</div><div class=""> modelBroker: ModelBroker,</div><div class=""> imageBroker: ImageBroker,</div><div class=""> analyticsSink: AnalyticsSink,</div><div class=""> // note use of different argument name:</div><div class=""> initialData: ModelData,</div><div class=""> // note use of non-optional:</div><div class=""> interactionDelegate: DriverDelegateProtocol) {</div><div class=""> // oh boy here we go again:</div><div class=""> self.collectionView = collectionView</div><div class=""> self.contentPresentation = contentPresentation</div><div class=""> self.modelBroker = modelBroker</div><div class=""> self.imageBroker = imageBroker</div><div class=""> self.analyticsSink = analyticsSink</div><div class=""> self.currentData = initialData</div><div class=""> self.interactionDelegate = interactionDelegate</div><div class=""> super.init()</div><div class=""> // only non-assignment logic in the entire init:</div><div class=""> self.collectionView.dataSource = self</div><div class=""> self.collectionView.delegate = self</div><div class=""> }</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> // best we can do under proposal w/out modifying </div><div class=""> // class design:</div><div class=""> required memberwise init(</div><div class=""> // lots of boilerplate gone:</div><div class=""> ..., </div><div class=""> // this isn't changed:</div><div class=""> initialData: ModelData,</div><div class=""> // this isn't changed:</div><div class=""> interactionDelegate: DriverDelegateProtocol) {</div><div class=""> // synthesized stuff is effectively here</div><div class=""> self.currentData = initialData</div><div class=""> self.interactionDelegate = interactionDelegate</div><div class=""> super.init()</div><div class=""> // only non-assignment logic in the entire init:</div><div class=""> self.collectionView.dataSource = self</div><div class=""> self.collectionView.delegate = self</div><div class=""> }</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">}</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">…which I do think is already a huge improvement. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Now suppose that stored-properties-in-extensions hits (as the "partial-init" flavor); in that case I’d ideally be able to move some of the parts into their own files like so:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">// in `FancyCollectionViewDriver+Analytics.swift`</div><div class="">extension FancyCollectionViewDriver {</div><div class=""> // ^ depending on advances in the protocol system, at some point may </div><div class=""> // evolve into a protocol-adoption to get useful default implementations</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> let analyticsReporter: AnalyticsReporter </div><div class=""> // ^ moved here, not in main declaration</div><div class=""> // assume also a bunch of private state-tracking stuff...</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> // a bunch of things like this:</div><div class=""> func reportEventTypeA(eventAInfo: EventAInfo)</div><div class=""> func reportEventTypeB(eventBInfo: BventAInfo)</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">// in `FancyCollectionViewDriver+Interaction.swift`</div><div class="">extension FancyCollectionViewDriver {</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> private(set) var interactionDelegate: DriverDelegateProtocol?</div><div class=""> // ^ moved here, not in main declaration</div><div class=""> // assume also a bunch of private state-tracking stuff...</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> // a bunch of things like this:</div><div class=""> func handleInteractionA(interactionAInfo: InteractionAInfo)</div><div class=""> func handleInteractionB(interactionBInfo: InteractionBInfo)</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">}</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">…(and so on for e.g. the `imageBroker` also), but under the current proposal this would put them outside the scope of a memberwise init (this isn’t news to you, I’m just making it concrete).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So in this scenario, we’re either reapproaching the MxN problem memberwise-init is meant to avoid:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">init(</div><div class=""> // still save some boilerplate:</div><div class=""> …, </div><div class=""> imageBroker: ImageBroker,</div><div class=""> analyticsReporter: AnalyticsReporter, </div><div class=""> initialData: ModelData, </div><div class=""> interactionDelegate: DriverDelegateProtocol) {</div><div class=""> // some boilerplate synththesized here...</div><div class=""> // ...but getting closer to where we started:</div><div class=""> self.partial_init(imageBroker: imageBroker)</div><div class=""> self.partial_init(analyticsReporter: analyticsReporter)</div><div class=""> self.currentData = modelData</div><div class=""> self.partial_init(interactionDelegate: interactionDelegate) </div><div class=""> super.init()</div><div class=""> self.collectionView.dataSource = self</div><div class=""> self.collectionView.delegate = self</div><div class="">}</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">…or we’re making choices between taking full-advantage of properties-in-extensions (which IMHO would often be a *huge* readability win) versus taking full-advantage of boilerplate-reduction in our inits.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Which is ultimately why I suspect that the “right" version of the proposed feature should cut to the chase and incorporate some way to explicitly-specify the memberwise parameter list — which, again, need not be incompatible with the ability to request automatic synthesis using logic ~ what’s in the proposal — as such an explicit list takes the pressure off of getting the default behavior as-right-as-possible while also making it simpler to support some very nice-to-have capabilities not supported by this proposal as-written.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That’s my 2c; thanks to anyone who’s read through all this and thanks again for drafting a concrete-enough proposal to discuss properly.</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 7, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Matthew Johnson <<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" class="">matthew@anandabits.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" 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;" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">On Jan 7, 2016, at 9:02 AM, plx via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">I like the general notion of something along these lines but admittedly haven’t had time to dig into the proposal specifics yet.<br class=""><br class="">I have some concerns about cross-interactions with other features that are either also under discussion or are at least very anticipatable.<br class=""><br class="">First, I know there has already been some discussion of allowing definition of stored fields in (some) extensions (e.g., something like allowing definition of stored fields in extensions within the module that defines the type).<br class=""><br class="">E.G., something like this may become possible (assume all files are compiled together):<br class=""><br class=""> // in `ComplicatedClass.swift`<br class=""> class ComplicatedClass {<br class=""> let text: String<br class=""><br class=""> // how will this get expanded,<br class=""> // given the extensions below?<br class=""> memberwise init(...)<br class=""> }<br class=""><br class=""> // in `ComplicatedClass+Foo.swift`<br class=""> extension ComplicatedClass {<br class=""> var fooData: Foo? = nil<br class=""> // presumably stuff-involving-`fooData`<br class=""> }<br class=""><br class=""> // in `ComplicatedClass+Bar.swift`<br class=""> extension ComplicatedClass {<br class=""> var barData: Bar = Bar.standardBar<br class=""> // presumably stuff-involving-`barData`<br class=""> }<br class=""><br class="">It doesn't seem impossible to specify how the memberwise-initialization would interact with constructs like the above, but I'd worry a bit about it making a feature that's already looking *rather* complicated even more so.<br class=""><br class="">Especially since, if I had to pick just one, I'd think the ability to define stored properties outside the initial definition is a bigger win than a nice memberwise-initialization construct, even though both seem handy.<br class=""></blockquote><br 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;" 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="">I followed the stored-properties-in-extensions discussion reasonably closely. My understanding is that the extension will need to initialize its own properties, either with an initial value or with a `partial init`. Designated initializers would be required to call the `partial init` for any extension that defines one.</span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" 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="">This being the case, memberwise initialization would not directly interact with this feature at all. Memberwise initializers declared in the main body of type itself would only expose stored properties defined in the type itself. </span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" 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="">It would also be possible to support `partial memberwise init` in extensions which would expose the stored properties declared in the extension as part of a partial initializer.</span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" 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="">I don’t think there are difficult complications here.</span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" 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;" class=""><br class="">Secondly, I’m a bit unsure how this will interact with e.g. the property-behavior proposal if both wind up ratified. For `lazy`, the interaction with `memberwise` is easy — it is omitted from the list — but when you get into e.g. something like a hypothetical `logged` or `synchronized` or `atomic` — wherein there is custom behavior, but the field would still need initialization — you’d want them to be included in the<br class="">`memberwise` init.<br class=""></blockquote><br 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;" 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="">My thought here is that a behavior would define whether a property allows and / or requires initialization in phase 1 or not. This is probably necessary independent of memberwise initialization. Properties that allow or require phase 1 initialization would be eligible for memberwise initialization. Properties that don’t allow phase 1 initialization would not be eligible for memberwise initialization.</span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" 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;" class=""><br class="">It’s a bit unfair to bring up another proposal, but this proposal and something like the property-behavior proposal *would* need to work well together (if both are approved).<br class=""></blockquote><br 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;" 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="">Agreed. That is why there is a rule that references property behaviors in the proposal.</span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" 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;" class=""><br class="">Thirdly, I’m not sure what the current plans are (if any) for users to be able to specify the precise memory-layout of a struct; apologies if this is already a feature, I simply haven’t looked into it.<br class=""><br class="">**Today**: I order stored-field declarations for ease-of-reading (e.g. grouped into logical groups, and organized for ease-of-reading).<br class=""><br class="">**Under Proposal**: I sometimes will get to choose between the “ease-of-reading” declaration ordering and the “cleanest-reading memberwise init” declaration ordering. These may not always be identical.<br class=""></blockquote><br 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;" 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="">Agree. This is something that could be addressed in a future enhancement if necessary. This proposal is focused on the basic mechanism.</span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" 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="">Also, nothing in the proposal prevents you from continuing to write a manual initializer when the synthesized initializer will not do what you require. If you are already explicitly restating the property identifiers to specify parameter order you are already half way to a manual initializer implementation. </span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" 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="">Granted, if you need more than one memberwise initializer you would have to duplicate that effort. But re-ordering is going to have a hard time providing enough value if the basic feature does what we need in the majority of cases.</span><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" class=""><br 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;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" 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;" class=""><br class="">**Future?**: I may have to choose between the “ease-of-reading” declaration ordering, the “cleanest-reading member wise init” declaration ordering, and (perhaps?) the “intended memory-layout” declaration ordering.<br class=""><br class="">I don’t want to make this proposal more-complicated than it already is, but I worry a bit about having too many things impacting the choice of how to order declarations in source files; it may be better to include a way to explicitly declare the ordering-for-memberwise:<br class=""><br class="">E.G., some way of explicitly indicating the memberwise ordering, perhaps like this:<br class=""><br class=""> // syntax example re-using `ComplicatedClass`<br class=""> class ComplicatedClass {<br class=""> @memberwise($parameterList)<br class=""> // ^ can use just @memberwise to get default ordering + the defaults from<br class=""> // the property declarations, but perhaps require the explicit listing<br class=""> // whenver the ordering is not well-defined (e.g. if you have properties<br class=""> // declared in extensions…then you need to order it yourself)<br class=""> //<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""> // @memberwise(text="Example",barData=,fooData)<br class=""> // - `text="Example"` => memberwise init has text="Example"<br class=""> // - `barData=` => memberwise init has `barData` w/out default<br class=""> // - `fooData` => memberwise init has `fooData` w/default if it has one<br class=""> //<br class=""> // …and e.g. the above would make:<br class=""> //<br class=""> // memberwise init(...)<br class=""> //<br class=""> // ...expand-to:<br class=""> //<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""> // init(text:String = "Example", barData: Bar, fooData:Foo?=nil)<br class=""> //<br class=""> // ...and with the @memberwise declaration supporting a `...` for `super`<br class=""> // placement, like so:<br class=""> //<br class=""> // // superclass members come before:<br class=""> // @memberwise(...,)<br class=""> // @memberwise(...,$parameterList)<br class=""> //<br class=""> // // superclass members come after <br class=""> // @memberwise(,...)<br class=""> // @memberwise($parameterList,...)<br class=""> //<br class=""> // ...perhaps with tweaked syntax (`@memberwise(...,$)` or `@memberwise(...,self)`)<br class=""> // to be bit easier to read when you don't have an explicit parameter list?<br class=""> }<br class=""><br class="">...which of course potentially only-further complicates the feature in some ways, but avoids having this use of this feature *necessarily* impact how one might choose to order declarations?<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Jan 6, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">Hello Swift community,<br class=""><br class="">The review of "Flexible Memberwise Initialization" begins now and runs through January 10th. The proposal is available here:<br class=""><br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0018-flexible-memberwise-initialization.md" class="">https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0018-flexible-memberwise-initialization.md</a><br class=""><br class="">Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at<br class=""><br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br class=""><br class="">or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.<br class=""><br class="">What goes into a review?<br class=""><br class="">The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:<br class=""><br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* What is your evaluation of the proposal?<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?<br class=""><br class="">More information about the Swift evolution process is available at<br class=""><br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md<br class=""><br class="">Thank you,<br class=""><br class="">-Chris<br class="">Review Manager<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class="">swift-evolution@swift.org<br class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>