> 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
