Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy

If lazy becomes @lazy, shouldn't dynamic become @dynamic as well? They both don't change the type as argued in the proposal, it only changes the way the value is accessed. Krystof > On May 19, 2016, at 4:19 AM, Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution > wrote: > >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy

> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? -1. Too early to optimize this. I would also be opposed to renaming didSet/willSet to lowercased preemptively because of the sake of renaming. I think property behaviors should declare their own naming and syntax conventions (and be accepted

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy

* What is your evaluation of the proposal? I’m -1 on this. The only motivation given for the proposal is: > Swift's rule for attribues/keywords is that keywords usually modify type of > variable; attributes do not. Chris Lattner has [refuted

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy

> The review of "SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy" begins now and runs through May > 23. The proposal is available here: > > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0087-lazy-attribute.md > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? I have nothing against

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy

* What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1 * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift? Yes. It's more consistent, both with the rules for keywords vs. attributes and with future improvements with property behaviors, as mentioned in the

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy

Hello Swift community, The review of "SE-0087: Rename lazy to @lazy" begins now and runs through May 23. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0087-lazy-attribute.md Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process.