Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

> On May 6, 2016, at 12:04 AM, David Hart wrote: > > I understand why the alternative of changing the generic type parameter list > symbols was rejected, to be consistent with other C based languages, but I > don't understand why the following was rejected: > > •

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

Definitely +1 to removing the .self requirement. Sent from my iPad > On May 5, 2016, at 11:34 PM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution > wrote: > > To keep progress going on this, I collected my thoughts from March's > discussion into a draft proposal: > >

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

Great I missed that change. Im fine with that change. :) I'd be happy to see `.self` being removed as well. -- Adrian Zubarev Am 6. Mai 2016 um 09:25:01, Pyry Jahkola (pyry.jahk...@iki.fi(mailto:pyry.jahk...@iki.fi)) schrieb: > > > > On 06 May 2016, at 10:19, Adrian Zubarev via

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

> On 06 May 2016, at 10:19, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Wouldn’t this enforce enum cases and some static struct variables to be > lowercase? > > Is this really a welcome change? I mean I’d love to see the drop of `.self` > magic from types, but

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

Wouldn’t this enforce enum cases and some static struct variables to be lowercase? public enum UINavigationControllerOperation: Int {          case None     case Push     case Pop } public struct NSLayoutFormatOptions: OptionSetType {     public init(rawValue: UInt)          public static var

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

> I understand why the alternative of changing the generic type parameter list > symbols was rejected, to be consistent with other C based languages, but I > don't understand why the following was rejected: > > making the UppercaseTypes, lowercaseValues convention a syntactic > requirement, as

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

+1 to David's point. Given that Swift's naming conventions already diverge from C's (and we have things like 'Self' vs 'self'), it seems like enforcing this relatively uncontroversial best practice would be an overall win. Austin > On May 6, 2016, at 12:04 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution >

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

I understand why the alternative of changing the generic type parameter list symbols was rejected, to be consistent with other C based languages, but I don't understand why the following was rejected: making the UppercaseTypes, lowercaseValues convention a syntactic requirement, as is done in

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

To keep progress going on this, I collected my thoughts from March's discussion into a draft proposal: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/299 -Joe > On Mar 9, 2016, at 11:23 AM, Tanner Nelson via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Hello Swift Evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

> On Mar 15, 2016, at 1:54 AM, Charles Constant wrote: > > +1 for junking the .self requirement > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:14 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution > > wrote: > I strongly agree for the

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

I personally don't mind the trailing `.self` but it does seem strange that you need that, or not, based on the number of parameters. I definitely think it would be nice to unify this one way or the other. Another interesting consideration I ran into just today is trying to use `self` as a

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution > wrote: > > For (A), we should look at the new places a generic type might appear in > expressions: > > - By itself: > > let x = Foo< T > > bar() // following statement > > let y = Foo< T, U > > bar()

Re: [swift-evolution] Making `.self` After `Type` Optional

Bumping this - did anything ever become of this? It seemed like there was general agreement to do something about the “.self” requirement when referencing types. I would personally like to see it go away. l8r Sean > On Mar 9, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Tanner Nelson via swift-evolution >