> On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Manfred Schubert <d...@schubert-it.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Am 17.07.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com>:
>>
>> Yeah, this is the intended use pattern for these namespaced constant. You
>> don't need the `rawValue:` label, though:
>>
>> extension NSImage.Name {
>> static let myImage = Name("myImage")
>> }
>
> It would be possible to do the same thing as an extension to String without
> making the default/simple case more complicated. So I would have said this is
> overkill, but I'm fine with it.
By making it a separate type, though, it lets you define constants without
polluting String's namespace, and lets the type system prevent typos or
accidental misuse of a name.
>
> What remains is the question whether it is possible to create NSBindingNames
> in a safe way, like from #selector().
If you want to ensure that the string value corresponds to a declaration, maybe
you could use #keyPath, which ought to be interchangeable with a string literal
but checked by the compiler.
-Joe
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
