-1 I can't see a significant advantage over using the library based approach where the receiver is clearly recognizable and no context problems arise.
-Thorsten > Am 14.04.2016 um 19:03 schrieb Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > <[email protected]>: > > >> On Apr 14, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Jonathan Tang via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > (in Smalltalk, like in Swift?, if i remember correctly, ‘self’ is >>> > implicitly >>> > returned in absence of a return value and can be ignored. >>> I'm a big fan of returning self — its much more useful than void… >>> But it seems the Swift-community doesn't like method chaining. >> >> I dunno about that... AlamoFire and SwiftyJSON both use it, and are quite >> popular with rank-and-file Swift programmers. It's certainly not popular in >> the Objective-C community (where the syntax doesn't really support it), but >> it seems like the Swift community may be warming up to it. >> >> I also like the idea of a dedicated method-cascading operator, like what >> Dart has. It eliminates the need for a programmer to explicitly remember to >> 'return self' at the end of a chainable method. Not sure how well it'd >> integrate with SE-0047 (@discardableResult) though. > > Method cascades draft: https://gist.github.com/erica/6794d48d917e2084d6ed > > deferred to after 3.0 > > -- E > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
