> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? I am in favor, except that I think we should keep `.self` in the language.
In my years programming, I have on a few occasions found it *very* useful to have an identity method/property automatically available on all instances. For instance, one of my Ruby projects has a model with `last_week`, `last_month`, `last_year`, etc. class methods on it returning subsets of the available models, and I had a screen with a panel summarizing the number of instances in each of these ranges. When I wanted to add an "all time" count, I upgraded to Ruby 2.2 and used its new `itself` method. To make this actually useful, .self would have to behave like a normal property in all respects—for instance, it would need to have a read-only lens once we support lenses. I don't think this is a tall order, but it *is* something that would need to be done. > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? Yes. It's a pain to write code that talks about types. > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? Yes. We don't normally tolerate "load-bearing duct tape" in the syntax like this. > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, > how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? Ruby has first-class, no-muss, no-fuss class objects like this and it's really nice. > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? Quick reading, plus I followed some of the earlier discussions. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
