> On 18 Jan 2017, at 05:38, Vinnie Hesener via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> The var keyword in protocol property requirements is misleading.
>
> From the docs:
> *If a protocol requires a property to be gettable and settable, that property
> requirement cannot be fulfilled by a constant stored property or a read-only
> computed property. If the protocol only requires a property to be gettable,
> the requirement can be satisfied by any kind of property, and it is valid for
> the property to be also settable if this is useful for your own code.*
>
> I feel this is slightly confusing. To conform, I can use let for { get }. I
> can't use var for { get set } if it's computed. This leads me to believe that
> the keyword var has no actual instructional meaning here. It seems misplaced
> to represent "property".
>
> I think it should be something else, or maybe removed entirely? Isn't { get
> set } enough to describe what this protocol needs? Maybe we can put the { get
> set } in front of the property name?
-1 from me
I’d rather keep the syntax for protocols as similar as possible to the syntax
for classes and structs.
There might be an argument for `let` in a protocol as well as `var` although
that would really be allowing protocol designers to dictate implementation
details to designers of structs and classes that implement the protocol.
>
> I can think of a couple other small benefits of this, but I don't know if it
> will distract from the main discussion. One of them being that it may
> discourage using lets for those new to the language, as most people will just
> lazily copy/paste the declaration.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
