Really interesting thread, and great work on the proposal so far, Joe. I have some additional thoughts but I wanted to chime in with one thing first:
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:08 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 21, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> :-( I'm worried about increasing the size of the language this much. I >>>> really want to be able to say "behaviors are just syntactic sugar for >>>> declaring accessors and storage, and then everything else behaves >>>> normally". This makes them another entirely orthogonal decl kind, like >>>> operators. >>> >>> I'd prefer not to have a new decl as well, if that was the best choice. >>> However, it's still just syntactic sugar for declaring accessors and >>> storage. >> >> I think there’s value for users in being able to group and scope the >> components associated with a particular behavior, so IMO it’s worth it. >> Overall, it makes usage of the language less complex in practice. > > I tend to agree. There is definite value in having really independent things > scoped out and cordoned off in their own areas. Agreed. For instance, it makes it much easier for tooling to know something is a behavior if it can just look for a keyword, rather than having to infer it from use, or some function declaration pattern or something. -Colin > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > 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
