Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 23, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Dec 23, 2015, at 11:09 PM, Riley Testut <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Glad to see there's definitely some interest in this community then! I would >> love to start writing up a final proposal to submit to the Swift-Evolution >> repo, but I think that last piece of information needed would be the actual >> method of initialization, specifically should we allow for returning >> instances from convenience initializers, or should we simply assign to self? >> >> Personally, I think returning from the initializer makes the most sense, >> especially because "self" in a protocol extension seems ambiguous. However, >> I'm not that much in favor that I couldn't be convinced to simply assign to >> self, because that already has some low level support in the language. >> Anyone have strong thoughts one way or another? > > Assigning to self was always a bit weird. I think returning an instance makes > more sense intuitively. It’s also, as you say, unclear exactly what “self” > even means in the context of a protocol. > > Probably the way I’d do it would be to have the method declared “factory > init” and be required to return an object. +1 assuming we want to use the same syntax in type and protocol extensions. I don't like assign-to-self in a protocol extension. Returning the instance also matches how factory methods are usually done in other languages. That shouldn't carry too much weight but it is worth noting. > > Charles > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
