Personally, I don't feel like your suggestion is a replacement for "with"
feature. "With" not just about mutating(it can be used to just get multiply
props from "target" instance), it allows to call methods of instance, use a
label of "target" instance (like $0) to be used as argument (like with
someInstance { ...; callFunc($0); } etc.
Also, in your suggestion there is implicit "self" for the target instance
(.firstName) and this will produce not obvious code (like .someColor =
.colorRed - first belongs to target instance, second - enum value)
I believe you can start new [Discussion]/[Idea] about this "mutating"
feature, in this thread I'd like to collect opinions regarding the "with"
feature proposal.
On 22.04.2016 11:12, Patrick Smith wrote:
I was wondering if all mutating and setters of a method could become a type
(Typename.Mutation), say something similar to an enum.
You’d use it like this:
let alice = john mutating [
.firstName = "Alice",
.makeScottishClan
]
See more here:
https://gist.github.com/BurntCaramel/ba2ce9dfd49595dacce07394de579172
Patrick
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:18 AM -0700, "Vladimir.S via swift-evolution"
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
Just wanted to summarize our opinions on this suggestion that we was
discussing earlier and check if someone is ready to crate an "official"
proposal for this feature.
There a number of questions regarding this feature we can discuss, for
example statement vs method, what could be a placeholder of target instance
inside the scope($0, $, _, .., nothing etc)
The main question, *do you support that we need "with" feature in some way
in Swift 3.0 out of the box* . And if so, what variant do you prefer.
* this proposal is for *explicit* "with", where it is clear what
method/property belongs to the "target" instance
* I believe that as such feature is really useful and handy, if it is
explicit and if it is clearly showing in code what we are doing - we want
to have this feature as part of language/standard lib rather than
possibility to use some workaround to implement it
* It is not about saving the space in code. It is about more readable and
(I insist) more stable(with less errors) code. Much less possibilities for
copy-paste errors. Wrong code completion suggestion(by editor) can not
produce error. It is explicit and clear, it has much less noise in code.
* Many of us already implemented and use such "with" construction in some
way
There were 2 main suggestions :
1) Introduce "with" statement that can be used in for example in such way:
// set props just after creating
// similar to "if let.. " and "guard let.."
with let questionLabel = UILabel() {
//set props of created instance here
// here we can have:
// $0.prop = value
// or
// ..prop = value
// or
// .prop = value
// or
// _.prop = value
// or
// $.prop = value
// or ?
}
// questionLabel is available here
// works for structures
with var some = SomeStruct() {
//...
}
// just for some class/structure/enum
with questionLabel {
// ..
}
probably
with var src = someNamedInstance1,
let dst = someNamedInstance2 {
src.propA = dst.propB
dst.someMethod(src.propC)
src.someMehtod()
}
or
with someNamedInstance1, someNamedInstance2 {
$0.propA = $1.propB
$1.someMethod($0.propC)
$0.someMehtod()
}
2) Introduce .with method for each(?) class/struct, so we can use
out-of-box:
let questionLabel = UILabel().with {
//set props of created instance here
$0.prop = value
}
var someStructInstance = SomeStruct().with {target in
target.prop = value
}
questionLabel.with {label in
label.prop = value
}
someNamedInstance1.with(someNamedInstance2) {src, dst in
src.propA = dst.propB
dst.someMethod(src.propC)
src.someMehtod()
}
Note that function like this :
func with(item:T, apply:(T)->Void) { apply(item) }
Produces such kind of problems:
struct A {var x = 1}
let a1 = A() // constant
with (a1) { $0.x = 10 } // this will be compiled without errors/warnings
On 13.04.2016 17:17, Radosław Pietruszewski via swift-evolution wrote:
> It can be (more-or-less) solved in library code today:
>
> extension NSObjectProtocol {
> public func with(@noescape fn: Self -> Void) -> Self {
> fn(self)
> return self
> }
> }
>
>
> This way, you can do, on NSObjects:
>
> textLabel.with {
>
> $0.textAlignment = .Left
>
> $0.textColor = .darkTextColor()
>
> }
>
>
> I love this pattern.
>
> You can also make it a function to make it work with any value of any kind
> (it will then take form of `with(foo) { …}`).
>
> Ideally, if you could write a universal extension (something like
> `extension Any`), you could just add this behavior, with method syntax, to
> everything.
>
> — Radek
>
>> On 13 Apr 2016, at 15:15, 李海珍 via swift-evolution
>> > wrote:
>>
>> I recently learned some VBA and I found a very conveniently `with`
statement.
>>
>> `with` statement can be helpful to set property for UIKit instance.
>>
>> for instance a UILabel instance `textLabel` ,with `with` statement we can
>> set UILabel property like this
>>
>>
>> ```swift
>>
>> with textLabel{
>>
>> .textAlignment= .Left
>>
>> .textColor= UIColor.darkTextColor()
>>
>> .font= UIFont.systemFontOfSize(15)
>>
>> }
>>
>> ```
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
