<div dir="ltr">It seems to me that deprecating 'default' should be its own topic, or the discussion on it will be harder to find, so I'd suggest making a topic dedicated to that idea, and keeping this one focused on .`keyword`.<div><br></div><div>Look for the topic: "[Idea] Deprecate the 'default' keyword."</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Waite via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Keywords following dots not requiring backticks also seems a valid option.</div><div><br></div>More of a meta-comment:<div> 1. Default was actually a poor name choice for an enumeration case given the meaning of ‘default’ in the language. Some might say this name choice is now being escalated</div><div> 2. Default has always been a restrictive term to have as a keyword, although it is only really required to be considered a keyword in one place</div><div><br></div><div>I personally would be fine with switching ‘default’ for ‘else’, as another evolutionator suggested. I don’t remember if this was proposed previously, or if that was only the idea of ‘case _:’, which I’m not really in favor of.</div><div><br></div><div>-DW</div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5"><div>On Feb 26, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi all,<div><br></div><div>As part of the grand API guidelines discussion, there was a lot of support for using lowerCamelCase for enum cases, because they are values in Swift. One unfortunate wrinkle here is that it’s not at all uncommon to have a case named “Default” for an enumeration. One example pulled randomly from GitHub:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div><font face="Menlo">enum DispatchQOS {</font></div></div><div><div><font face="Menlo"> case UserInteractive</font></div></div><div><div><font face="Menlo"> case UserInitiated</font></div></div><div><div><font face="Menlo"> case Default</font></div></div><div><div><font face="Menlo"> case Utility</font></div></div><div><div><font face="Menlo"> case Background</font></div></div><div><div><font face="Menlo">}</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If we’re lowerCamelCasting enum cases, this becomes:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><font face="Menlo">enum DispatchQOS {</font></div><div><font face="Menlo"> case userInteractive</font></div><div><font face="Menlo"> case userInitiated</font></div><div><font face="Menlo"> case `default`</font></div><div><font face="Menlo"> case utility</font></div><div><font face="Menlo"> case background</font></div><div><font face="Menlo">}</font></div><div><font face="Menlo"><br></font></div></blockquote></div><div>Note the back-ticks, which are also needed at the call site:</div><div><br></div><div><font face="Menlo"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>func dispatch(priority priority: </font></div><div><font face="Menlo"><br></font></div><div><font face="Menlo"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>dispatch(priority: .`default`) { … }</font></div><div><br></div><div>We could allow one to refer to keywords without back-ticks following a “.”, similarly to the way we allow keywords without back-ticks preceding a ‘:’ for argument labels, e.g.:</div><div><br></div><div><div><font face="Menlo"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>func dispatch(priority priority: </font></div><div><font face="Menlo"><br></font></div><div><font face="Menlo"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>dispatch(priority: .`default`) { … }</font></div></div><div><font face="Menlo"><br></font></div><div>One would still need to use back-ticks in the declaration of the case, but at least uses would be back-tick-free. Thoughts?</div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>- Doug</div><div><br></div></div></div></div><span class="">_______________________________________________<br>swift-evolution mailing list<br><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>