Matthew,

Understood, I just wanted to link the conversations together.

As for the idea, I am a huge fan of removing the necessary $0.

-Sean

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 7:57 AM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for lining to the original thread Sean.  I should have done that 
> myself.
> 
> I started a new thread as this is really an independent feature that is 
> related to the spread operator but stands on its own.  It deserves a thread 
> and subject line of its own.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Dec 18, 2015, at 6:38 AM, Sean Kosanovich <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>> This was/is being discussed at length in this thread: 
>> https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/002742.html
>>  
>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/002742.html>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 17, 2015, at 10:27 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution 
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Swift currently offers dot shorthand for static members of type Self in 
>>> type contexts expecting a value of the type in question.  This is most 
>>> commonly used with enum cases.
>>> 
>>> Swift does not currently offer shorthand for instance members.  Introducing 
>>> a shorthand for instance members would improve clarity and readability of 
>>> code in common cases:
>>> 
>>> anArray.map{$0.anInstanceMethod()}
>>> 
>>> becomes:
>>> 
>>> anArray.map(.anInstanceMethod())
>>> 
>>> This shorthand would work in typing contexts expecting a single argument 
>>> function.  It would allow abbreviated access to any visible instance 
>>> property getter or instance method on the type of the argument.  Of course 
>>> the return type would need to match the return type expected by the context 
>>> or a type mismatch compiler error would occur.
>>> 
>>> The readability advantage is arguably small but it does exist.  The feature 
>>> also aligns very well with an existing language feature.
>>> 
>>> I think it’s an interesting idea and am wondering whether others feel like 
>>> it is something worth pursuing or not.
>>> 
>>> Matthew
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution 
>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>> 

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to