As someone who is very in favor of using `self` everywhere, I’ve come to the conclusion that the easiest way to use `self` everywhere is to write `self` everywhere. I write Swift as if `self` were mandatory, and as that email argues, that’s good enough for me. Personally I find self-less code harder to read, but it’s not a big enough difference for me to argue for pushing it on everyone else.
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Greg Power via swift-users < swift-users@swift.org> wrote: > Hi Travis, > > I’m certainly not a core contributor, but I could point you to the > rejection email for this proposal, which you might not have seen: > > https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/ > Week-of-Mon-20160104/005478.html > > It states that the core team felt that the proposal was not the right > direction for Swift, and lists a few reasons. > > The main reason appears to be that enforcing a mandatory *self* for > instance members would increase the visual clutter of the language, which > is counter to Swift's goals of clarity and minimal boilerplate. > > That email links to Paul Cantrell’s response to the proposal, which is > also a really good (and elucidating) read: https://lists.swift.org/ > pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/002910.html. > > No need for flame or heat! > > Regards, > > Greg Power > > > On 23 May 2017, at 7:28 am, Travis Griggs via swift-users < > swift-users@swift.org> wrote: > > I’m trying to figure out how to ask this question without generating flame > and heat. Like tabs and spaces, under_scores and camelCase, whether or not > one thinks that a message dispatch receiver should be explicit or implicit > seems to be highly personal, (I think*) based on where/how you learned > programming, especially object oriented paradigms. Personally, I agree with > Matt Neuberg and this Swift proposal (https://github.com/apple/ > swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0009-require-self- > for-accessing-instance-members.md). But I recognize there’s a community > of others out there that think otherwise, and I’m not interested in trying > to convert them to my approach. > > What I *am* curious about is is what the core > contributors/architects/designers > seem to prefer? Is there any sort of consensus, or at least majority, that > those doing the core work lean towards? They don’t have to convince me or > vice versa. It’s just frustrating when collaborating with open source > projects, that in this one area, there’s really no direction I’ve seen come > forth. > > For example, when Swift was waffling between functional and message > oriented, I heard Chris Lattner (and have since seen in style guides) > recommendations that if you can bind some behavior to data, you should, > rather than leaving it a free function. That was nice to hear, and not just > because I agreed. It was just nice to know which way the language would be > leaning. > _______________________________________________ > swift-users mailing list > swift-users@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-users mailing list > swift-users@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users > >
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
