> On Oct 9, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Jordan Rose <jordan_r...@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 8, 2017, at 21:56, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2017, at 7:07 AM, James Valaitis via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it widely agreed that it is necessary to require a return statement on a
>>> one line property getter?
>>>
>>> var session: AVCaptureSession { get { return layer.session } }
>>>
>>> Or could we follow the convention for any other close and get rid of it?
>>> For me it seems redundant; the word `get` literally precedes the closure.
>>
>> In multi-file projects, re-compiling one file that references the property
>> would necessitate type checking the body of the getter, even if the getter
>> is defined in a different source file. So one reason not to have this would
>> be to avoid slowing down type checking.
>
> This is not correct. Omitting the "return" is different from omitting the
> property's type.
>
> (I'm minorly in favor of allowing the 'return' to be omitted for
> single-expression getters. Not enough to be the person who implements it, but
> enough to +1 a proposal-with-implementation even in the Swift 5 timeframe.)
I’m minorly opposed, because it feels like a slippery slope. What about
function bodies? etc
func foo() -> Int { 3 } // should this be allowed?
Slava
>
> Jordan
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
