I will add one thing here that I don't think has been mentioned, which is code completion in Xcode.
Frequently, I use "self." to see what methods/properties are available to me on the current object. If I am working on a project where implicit self is preferred (as suggested by a number of style guides), going back and removing these self references is unfortunate. Also reading further in the thread I realize that the issue mention below was addressed. Furthermore, perhaps "strongly" in favor is not quite right. I could deal with the status quo. Tyler > On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:43 AM, Tyler Cloutier via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm strongly in favor of the proposal, but I too think the proposal is > missing balance. I'd really like to see all the points for and against laid > out in one place, so they can be weighed appropriately. > > Tyler > >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Nick Shelley via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Also, the "community responses" section only lists the positive community >> responses, when the actual community discussion seemed to be more of an even >> split (if not more people opposed). That's just more evidence that at least >> this particular proposal is blatantly and purposefully one-sided in its >> representation of the community's input. >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Nick Shelley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> All of the prior swift-evolution commentary on this proposal (which is >>>> nearing the 100-message mark) will also be considered, of course! >>> >>> It is my opinion that the proposal should encapsulate as much of that >>> discussion as possible so every reviewer doesn't have to read every comment >>> in that thread. The current proposal is wildly one-sided and seems to only >>> reflect the opinion of its author and those who agree with the proposal. I >>> created a Pull Request (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/59, >>> still not merged and no comments as to why) to more fairly represent the >>> single counter-argument pointed out in the proposal, but others in the >>> mailing list expressed concern that none of the other downsides of the >>> proposal are represented at all. >>> >>> Is my (and others') desire to have the proposal contain an accurate >>> representation of the main points of the community discussion off base? Is >>> the main purpose of the proposal to be a sales pitch for an idea, even if >>> it includes building up and tearing down straw-man versions of the >>> arguments brought forth by the opposition? I'm asking with sincere >>> curiosity because I can't seem to find a good description of the purpose of >>> the proposal in my research of how the evolution process works. >>> >>> Thanks in advance for clarifying these points for me. >>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> All of the prior swift-evolution commentary on this proposal (which is >>>> nearing the 100-message mark) will also be considered, of course! >>>> >>>> - Doug >>>> >>>>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>>> <[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] >>>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
