> On May 10, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Timothy Wood <t...@me.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On May 10, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 10, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As a compile-time substitution, it could be used in any and all of the
>>> examples in your bullet list as a literal text replacement..
>>>
>>> Quick rundown:
>>>
>>> struct A {
>>> ...#Self... // #Self is substituted by A
>>> }
>>>
>>> class B {
>>> ...#Self... // Self is substituted by B
>>> }
>>>
>>> class C {
>>> ... #Self... // Self is substituted by C, which is the defining type at
>>> compile time
>>> }
>>
>> I think it would be surprising if #Self produced the name of the enclosing
>> static type: Self produces the dynamic type, and we’d want to preserve
>> consistency if it were named #Self.
>
>
> I’m not sure I understand this comment -- if #Self should mean the same as
> Self, why would it get added? My whole point in suggesting #Self was that it
> mirrored #file and #line in that it was a compile time replacement of some
> static information.
I think I misunderstood “textual replacement” to mean that #Self returns a
string.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
