> Problem 2: This can cause very surprising performance issues, because it
> forces the let property to be stored. With the previous example, it is a
> goal for us to be able to compile:
>
> public class X {
> let a = 42
> }
>
> into the equivalent of:
>
> public class X {
> var a : Int { return 42 }
> }
>
> because people like to use local lets as manifest constants (avoiding “magic
> numbers”). With your proposal, we’d lose this capability, and we’d have to
> store them any time there is a memberwise initializer.
>
> Neither of these problems apply to vars, which is why I think we can support
> vars in this model, but not lets.
Sorry to sidetrack the discussion, but does that mean that using `let`
properties in a type where memory layout is important is possibly not
forward-compatible?
Félix
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
