> On Apr 4, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 4, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> Are there reasons that prevent using `Self` as a synonym for an instance's >> type name? >> >> Consider: >> >> struct MyStruct { >> static func foo() { print("foo") } >> func bar() { >> MyStruct.foo() // works >> self.dynamicType.foo() // works >> Self.foo() // error >> } >> } >> >> Obviously, you can always name a type directly or use `self.dynamicType` but >> neither solution does any favors for readability. Both approaches obscure >> intent, >> especially as type names grow large: `MyExtremelyLargeTypeName.staticMember`, >> for example. Plus, as Kevin B pointed out to me, >> `self.dynamicType.classMember` >> and `TypeName.classMember` may not be synonyms in class types with non-final >> members. >> >> I'd like to see `Self.staticMember` introduced as a synonym for >> `TypeName.staticMember`. > > There's the wrinkle of inheritance, as there so often is. `Self` inside a > class scope already means "the dynamic class of 'self'", not "the type this > declaration statically appears within". Now, we really ought to allow you to > utter Self in the bodies of class methods too. It would be consistent to > extend that courtesy to value types, where dynamic `Self` always matches the > static type, from that principle. > > -Joe
Would using another word or symbol fix that problem? -- E
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution