+1
'default' alone makes this worth it.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Michael Peternell via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> +1
> I think it's a good thing. I don't think that it would introduce any bad
> ambiguities for the human reader. E.g. "case .default:" may look
+1
I think it's a good thing. I don't think that it would introduce any bad
ambiguities for the human reader. E.g. "case .default:" may look like
"default:", but so does "case .`default`:" - all other cases that I can think
of don't seem to introduce any problems.
> Am 26.04.2016 um 06:20
> On 26 Apr 2016, at 06:20, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of "Allow (most) keywords in member references" begins now and
> runs through April 29th. The proposal is available here:
>
>
>
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1 The new API conventions for member references (especially enums) seem broken
without this proposal IMHO.
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
> to Swift?
I think it is paramount.
> * Does
I didn’t initially think I would care much one way or the other about this
proposal, but I find that proposal 0001 has been really helpful in letting me
use prepositions such as “for” and “in” as argument labels and I see the same
natural applications in this proposal.
I think this does fit in
> The review of "Allow (most) keywords in member references" begins now and
> runs through April 29th. The proposal is available here:
>
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0071-member-keywords.md
The whole rigamarole would be overkill, so: Absolutely. I