Sent from my iPad
> On May 25, 2016, at 3:56 PM, Erica Sadun <er...@ericasadun.com> wrote: > >> On May 25, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 25, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> I like this pretty well, and I think "with()" makes sense as a peer of >>> "withUnsafePointer()", "withExtendedLifetime()", etc. >>> >>> I'd also be okay with waiting for a comprehensive method-cascading >>> solution. I don't find this issue particularly urgent, because it's pretty >>> easily solvable with an extension or just using closures. >> >> +1. I’ve been playing around with it in my own code a little bit. I’m >> still uncertain about when I think it is good style and when I think it is >> best avoided. I would certainly feel more comfortable using it if it was in >> the standard library. >> >> At the same time, I think we can and should do better in the future. If >> that is the plan, do we really want `with` in the standard library? I don’t >> mind waiting for a better solution, especially if it means a better solution >> is more likely to happen and / or we aren’t left with an unnecessary and >> duplicative function in the standard library. >> >> So I’m on the fence here. > > I wouldn't be pushing if I thought it wouldn't be useful after cascading. If > no other reason, it offers a way to duplicate/modify value types to be stored > into constants. That alone should argue for its value. Can you point us to the latest draft of what you have in mind for cascading in the future? > > -- E >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
