<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 14, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Andrey Tarantsov <<a href="mailto:andrey@tarantsov.com" class="">andrey@tarantsov.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: 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" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">I also like the idea of a dedicated method-cascading operator, like what Dart has. It eliminates the need for a programmer to explicitly remember to 'return self' at the end of a chainable method. Not sure how well it'd integrate with SE-0047 (@discardableResult) though.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: 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="">Method cascades draft: <a href="https://gist.github.com/erica/6794d48d917e2084d6ed" class="">https://gist.github.com/erica/6794d48d917e2084d6ed</a></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: 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=""></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: 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="">deferred to after 3.0</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></div>I really think this settles the discussion, because methods cascades are *the* way to implement this kind of thing. (And for the record, I would prefer a SmallTalk/Dart-like syntax to a "with" statement.)</div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>It's been quite a while since the original discussion and I'm going to go all Brent R-G on the answer, which is I've come to prefer the Dart solution for cascading, think `with` is better suited for mutating copies of struct constants (<a href="http://ericasadun.com/2016/03/24/immutable-setters/" class="">Immutable setters</a>, may not be language-inclusion suitable), and think binding self in closures is yet a third issue.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Brent, concur?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-- E</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>