> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:32 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would love it if we found a way to retain something as concise as that
>>> shorthand. I'm working on a library where users will specify a collection
>>> of key paths pairs. This shorthand would be a very nice piece of sugar
>>> making the code expressing these collections (usually literals) quite a bit
>>> more readable.
>>
>> +1 for this. I think it will be somewhat common to pass around arrays of
>> these things, and a shorthand syntax of some sort would make that nicer.
>> That said, I don’t want to slow down the proposal, since I will be using
>> this feature the very second it becomes available.
>
> Agreed.
>
> One more thought on this: I don't think anyone really likes the
> #keyPath(Type, .key1.key2)` syntax; it's just the best we've come up with. If
> the syntax were instead this:
>
> #keyPath(Type).key1.key2
>
> I think that would look cleaner and avoid drawing distinctions based on
> subtle punctuation differences. I don't think it would clash with old-style
> key paths since you can't have a key path to a type name anyway. And support
> for the leading-dot syntax would fall out of it quite naturally.
I see the value in terms of "enabling" the leading-dot syntax, but you have to
admit that this is really weird with the leading #keyPath expression actually
there.
John.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
