> On Apr 7, 2016, at 9:34 PM, Les Pruszynski via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > This is my first post on this list so please bear with me. > > I very much like this proposal but what bothers me is this doubling of > valueForKeyPath(#keyPath(xxx) in the signature of the function. > > chris.valueForKeyPath(#keyPath(Person.bestFriend.lastName)) // => Groff > chris.valueForKeyPath(#keyPath(Person.friends.firstName)) // => ["Joe", > "Douglas"] > > I’m not sure whether the form below is actually possible. For me it reads > more naturally and is more consistent with “Modern Swift” as far as I know. > > chris.valueFor(#keyPath(Person.friends.firstName)) // => ["Joe", "Douglas”] > or maybe > chris.valueOf(#keyPath(Person.friends.firstName)) // => ["Joe", "Douglas”] >
If key paths were some stronger type (as Brent is suggesting), we could do this. However, because key paths are just Strings, we need to compensate for weak type information <https://swift.org/documentation/api-design-guidelines/#promote-clear-usage>, so valueForKeyPath should retain it’s currently name despite the redundancy in many use sites with #keyPath. - Doug
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
