> A behavior declaration
>
> This has promise as well. By using a declaration like this, you can have
> basically a DSL (using contextual keywords) to specify things like whether
> it's lazy-initialized, decorators, and transformers. Same benefits as the
> protocol family (e.g. good compiler checking of the behavior definition
> before it's even used anywhere), allows for code code-completion too, and it
> doesn't litter the global function namespace with behavior names.
>
> The more I think about this, the more I think it's a good idea. Especially
> because it won't litter the global function namespace with behavior names.
> Behavior constructors should not be callable by the user, and behaviors may
> be named things we would love to use as function names anyway (if a behavior
> implements some functionality that is useful to be exposed to the user
> anyway, it can vend a type like your proposal has and people can just
> instantiate that type directly).
>
+1 to these comments. I think this option should at least be fleshed out
further and receive serious consideration.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
