-1, for this reason, and for the extreme loss in conciseness already mentioned elsewhere. The purported extra clarity is not worth the extra burden placed on writing code in my opinion. I would favor a compiler warning at the most, and this can be solved on an individual/team basis with linting tools as well.
On 12/18/2015 1:02 AM, Jed Lewison via swift-evolution wrote: > I’m not in favor of this proposal, and rather than repeat arguments > that have already been made, I thought I’d share a small piece of data > from the project I’m working on to illustrate the impact of implicit > self in terms of reducing repetitive boilerplate cruft. > > Our project consists of a legacy ObjC code base for an iOS app and a > new version written entirely in Swift. The feature set is largely the > same in both code bases, so it’s a good A vs B comparison. > > In the Objective C version of the app, there are ~25,000 explicit > references to self. (Keep in mind that this could easily have been a > much bigger number if there weren’t such pervasive usage of ivars in > the code.). > > In the Swift version, there are ~1,000 explicit references to self, > mostly in initializers and when passing self as an argument to a > protocol — and about 10% of those would disappear with the proposal to > allow implicit references to self with a strong capture list. > > I know self is just a 4-letter word, and I know Swift’s goal isn’t to > reduce character count simply for the sake of reducing character > count, but it least for our project, avoiding “self”-blindness has > really mode code more readable. > > >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hello Swift community, >> >> The review of “Require self for accessing instance members” begins >> now and runs through Sunday, December 20th. The proposal is available >> here: >> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0009-require-self-for-accessing-instance-members.md >> >> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All >> reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at >> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> >> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the >> review manager. >> >> What goes into a review? >> >> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under >> review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the >> direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions >> you might want to answer in your review: >> >> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? >> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a >> change to Swift? >> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? >> * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar >> feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? >> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick >> reading, or an in-depth study? >> >> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at >> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md >> >> Cheers, >> Doug Gregor >> Review Manager >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
