Interesting proposal, but how would it work with closures that take two
or more params? What would the following expression become:
[1,2,3,4].reduce("", { $0.description + $1.description })
Is this special syntax that would only apply to closures with one
parameter? If so I'm not sure that I would consider it worth the added
complexity (though I agree that the $0 doesn't look that nice normally).
- Kevin
On 12/17/2015 10:27 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution 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
