Thanks for lining to the original thread Sean.  I should have done that myself.

I started a new thread as this is really an independent feature that is related 
to the spread operator but stands on its own.  It deserves a thread and subject 
line of its own.

Matthew


Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Sean Kosanovich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> This was/is being discussed at length in this thread: 
> https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/002742.html
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 10:27 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Swift currently offers dot shorthand for static members of type Self in type 
>> contexts expecting a value of the type in question.  This is most commonly 
>> used with enum cases.
>> 
>> Swift does not currently offer shorthand for instance members.  Introducing 
>> a shorthand for instance members would improve clarity and readability of 
>> code in common cases:
>> 
>> anArray.map{$0.anInstanceMethod()}
>> 
>> becomes:
>> 
>> anArray.map(.anInstanceMethod())
>> 
>> This shorthand would work in typing contexts expecting a single argument 
>> function.  It would allow abbreviated access to any visible instance 
>> property getter or instance method on the type of the argument.  Of course 
>> the return type would need to match the return type expected by the context 
>> or a type mismatch compiler error would occur.
>> 
>> The readability advantage is arguably small but it does exist.  The feature 
>> also aligns very well with an existing language feature.
>> 
>> I think it’s an interesting idea and am wondering whether others feel like 
>> it is something worth pursuing or not.
>> 
>> Matthew
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to