Given that someView.insertSubview(_:at:) can be correctly parsed, I would strongly lean towards the no-backtick alternative mentioned at the end. I feel as though the backticks end up looking very cluttered (particularly when you get into the double-nested backticks), and it seems cleaner to be able to reference a method as it was declared rather than having to add extra syntax.
In reference to the issues noted with this approach: IMO, there is already enough syntactic difference between getters/setters and normal methods to justify requiring a different syntax to reference them. For instance, the # syntax could be used so that, button.currentTitle.get would reference Optional<String>.get, and button.currentTitle#get would reference the getter. Or, button.`currentTitle.get` could reference the getter (i.e. backticks are only required in cases that are ambiguous). I also think it is reasonable to require that in the case of a method with no arguments such as set.removeAllElements, the programmer be expected to know the difference between the expression with and without the trailing parenthesis. After all, that distinction already exists in the language, and would not disappear with this proposed addition. If a parallel syntax for referencing methods with no arguments is strongly desired, perhaps something such as set.removeAllElements(:), set#removeAllElements(), or similar could be used, though I think that the present system for referencing these methods is sufficient. Are there other obvious reasons why this alternative wouldn’t work? I think it is the cleanest of the alternatives and avoids littering the code with backticks. FKL On Dec 26, 2015, at 11:22 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi all, > > Here’s a proposal draft to allow one to name any function in Swift. In > effect, it’s continuing the discussion of retrieving getters and setters as > functions started by Michael Henson here: > > > https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151207/002168.html > > <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151207/002168.html> > > the proposal follows, and is available here as well: > > > https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolution/blob/generalized-naming/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md > > <https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolution/blob/generalized-naming/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md> > > Comments appreciated! > > Generalized Naming for Any Function > > Proposal: SE-NNNN > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md> > Author(s): Doug Gregor <https://github.com/DougGregor> > Status: Awaiting Review > Review manager: TBD > > <https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolution/blob/generalized-naming/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md#introduction>Introduction > > Swift includes support for first-class functions, such that any function (or > method) can be placed into a value of function type. However, it is not > possible to specifically name every function that is part of a Swift > program---one cannot provide the argument labels when naming a function, nor > are property and subscript getters and setters referenceable. This proposal > introduces a general syntax that allows one to name anything that is a > function within Swift in an extensible manner. > > Swift-evolution thread: Michael Henson started a thread about the > getter/setter issue here > <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151207/002168.html>, > continued here > <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/002203.html>. > See the Alternatives considered > <https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolution/blob/generalized-naming/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md#alternatives-considered> > section for commentary on that discussion. > > > <https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolution/blob/generalized-naming/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md#motivation>Motivation > > It's fairly common in Swift for multiple functions or methods to have the > same "base name", but be distinguished by parameter labels. For example, > UIView has three methods with the same base name insertSubview: > > extension UIView { > func insertSubview(view: UIView, at index: Int) > func insertSubview(view: UIView, aboveSubview siblingSubview: UIView) > func insertSubview(view: UIView, belowSubview siblingSubview: UIView) > } > When calling these methods, the argument labels distinguish the different > methods, e.g., > > someView.insertSubview(view, at: 3) > someView.insertSubview(view, aboveSubview: otherView) > someView.insertSubview(view, belowSubview: otherView) > However, when referencing the function to create a function value, one cannot > provide the labels: > > let fn = someView.insertSubview // ambiguous: could be any of the three > methods > In some cases, it is possible to use type annotations to disambiguate: > > let fn: (UIView, Int) = someView.insertSubview // ok: uses > insertSubview(_:at:) > let fn: (UIView, UIView) = someView.insertSubview // error: still ambiguous! > To resolve the latter case, one must fall back to creating a closure: > > let fn: (UIView, UIView) = { view, otherView in > button.insertSubview(view, otherView) > } > which is painfully tedious. A similar workaround is required to produce a > function value for a getter of a property, e.g., > > extension UIButton { > var currentTitle: String? { ... } > } > > var fn: () -> String? = { () in > return button.currentTitle > } > One additional bit of motivation: Swift should probably get some way to ask > for the Objective-C selector for a given method (rather than writing a string > literal). The argument to such an operation would likely be a reference to a > method, which would benefit from being able to name any method, including > getters and setters. > > > <https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolution/blob/generalized-naming/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md#proposed-solution>Proposed > solution > > Swift currently has a back-tick escaping syntax that lets one use keywords > for names, which would otherwise fail to parse. For example, > > func `try`() -> Bool { ... } > declares a function named try, even though try is a keyword. I propose to > extend the back-tick syntax to allow compound Swift names (e.g., > insertSubview(_:aboveSubview:)) and references to the accessors of properties > (e.g., the getter for currentTitle). Specifically, > > Compound names can be written entirely within the back-ticks, e.g., > > let fn = someView.`insertSubview(_:at:)` > let fn1 = someView.`insertSubview(_:aboveSubview:)` > The same syntax can also refer to initializers, e.g., > > let buttonFactory = UIButton.`init(type:)` > Getters and setters can be written using dotted syntax within the back-ticks: > > let specificTitle = button.`currentTitle.get` // has type () -> String? > let otherTitle = UIButton.`currentTitle.get` // has type (UIButton) -> () -> > String? > let setTintColor = button.`tintColor.set` // has type (UIColor!) -> () > The same syntax works with subscript getters and setters as well, using the > full name of the subscript: > > extension Matrix { > subscript (row row: Int) -> [Double] { > get { ... } > set { ... } > } > } > > let getRow = someMatrix.`subscript(row:).get` // has type (Int) -> () -> > [Double] > let setRow = someMatrix.`subscript(row:).set` // has type (Int) -> ([Double]) > -> () > If we introduce property behaviors into Swift, the back-tick syntax could > also be used to refer to behaviors, e.g., accessing the lazy behavior of a > property: > > self.`myProperty.lazy`.clear() > Base names that are meaningful keywords (init and subscript) can be escaped > with a nested pair of back-ticks: > > extension Font { > func `subscript`() -> Font { > // return the subscript version of the given font > } > } > > let getSubscript = font.``subscript`()` // has type () -> Font > The "produce the Objective-C selector for the given method" operation will be > the subject of a separate proposal. However, here is one possibility that > illustrations how it uses the proposed syntax here: > > let getter: Selector = objc_selector(NSDictionary.`subscript(_:).get`) // > produces objectForKeyedSubscript: > let setter: Selector = objc_selector(NSDictionary.`subscript(_:).set`) // > produces setObject:forKeyedSubscript: > > <https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolution/blob/generalized-naming/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md#impact-on-existing-code>Impact > on existing code > > This is a purely additive feature that has no impact on existing code. The > syntactic space it uses is already present, and it merely extends the use of > back-ticks from storing a single identifier to more complex names. > > > <https://github.com/DougGregor/swift-evolution/blob/generalized-naming/proposals/0000-generalized-naming.md#alternatives-considered>Alternatives > considered > > Michael Henson proposed > <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151207/002168.html> > naming getters and setters using # syntax followed by get or set, e.g., > > let specificTitle = button.currentTitle#get > The use of postfix # is a reasonable alternative here, and more lightweight > than two back-ticks for the simple getter/setter case. The notion could be > extended to allow argument labels for functions, discussed here > <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/002210.html>. > The proposals in that discussion actually included type annotations as well, > but the syntax seems cleaner---and more directly focused on names---without > them, e.g.,: > > let fn = someView.insertSubview#(_:at:) > which works. I didn't go with this syntax because (1) it breaks up Swift > method names such as insertSubview(_:at:)with an # in the middle, and (2) > while useful, this feature doesn't seem important enough to justify > overloading #further. > > Joe Groff notes > <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/003008.html> > that lenses are a better solution than manually retrieving getter/setter > functions when the intent is to actually operate on the properties. That > weakens the case this proposal makes for making getters/setters available as > functions. However, it doesn't address the general naming issue or the desire > to retrieve the Objective-C selector for a getter/setter. > > Can we drop the back-ticks? It's very tempting to want to drop the back-ticks > entirely, because something like > > let fn = someView.insertSubview(_:at:) > can be correctly parsed as a reference to insertSubview(_:at:). However, it > breaks down at the margins, e.g., with getter/setter references or > no-argument functions: > > extension Optional { > func get() -> T { return self! } > } > > let fn1 = button.currentTitle.get // getter or Optional<String>.get? > let fn2 = set.removeAllElements() // call or reference? > > > - Doug > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
