My personal opinion (as with the @lazy proposal) is that changing the names of to-be-property-behaviors should be deferred until the property behaviors proposal is finalized and accepted. I understand why fixing them pre-emptively might be a good idea, though.
Austin > On May 19, 2016, at 11:12 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> On May 18, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 18, 2016, at 3:53 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>>> didSet and willSet remain outliers in the general rule of conjoined >>>> lowercase keywords. Is there any support for bringing these outliers into >>>> the fold? >>> >>> I don't think we shouldn't touch these until we know what accessors on >>> property behaviors are going to look like. We could very well change these >>> now and then change them back in the next version; that kind of bouncing >>> back and forth is maddening for users. Better leave them alone for now and >>> change them later if we decide to, than change them in Swift 3 and then >>> have a high probability of changing them back in Swift 4. >> >> I generally agree, but is that an option? Changing `didSet` to `didset` is >> a breaking change. > > In practice, we can accept both spellings for a long time at no harm to > anyone. The first question to answer is “what is the right thing”. We can > talk about how to phase it in separately. > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > 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
