Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Robert Schwalbe via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> Hello Robert, >> >> My comment below: >> >>> Per my reading of SE-0022, would SE-0064 institute the first exception to >>> the #selector expression where the expression is not a reference to a >>> method? >> >> Indeed. But I don’t see the issue. It still generates a selector for an >> Objective-C method. > > Thank you David. > > I do agree it generates a selector. My objection would be that there are no > Objective-C methods named “getter” or “setter”. Objective-C's @property syntax uses "getter" and "setter" to name the getter and setter selectors, and that's the information being extracted by this Swift expression. - Doug > >>> In the spirit of taking my lumps for not speaking up when asked to do so, >>> was there any discussion that considered: >>> >>> let firstNameGetter = #selector(get: Person.firstName) >>> let firstNameSetter = #selector(set: Person.firstName) >>> >>> in lieu of the accepted: >>> >>> let firstNameGetter = #selector(getter: Person.firstName) >>> let firstNameSetter = #selector(setter: Person.firstName) >>> >>> My concern would be a growing list of permitted non method name parameters >>> to the #selector expression. >> >> I don’t think get/set was specifically mentioned. My personal opinion is >> that it does not read well because it reads as an action. > > I could go along with you that it reads as an action, but I also think we > could come up with tons of existing toolbox method names that would also read > as actions. > > Maybe I am hung up on insisting that the expression must be an actual name of > an Objective-C method. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
