Comments below

> Am 06.05.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Haravikk via swift-evolution 
> <[email protected]>:
> 
> Actually a setter has more in common with a function, in which case the let 
> implicit, the difference is that a setters type is also implicit. In fact, 
> you don’t even need to specify a name in a setter at all, as the default is 
> newValue and you can just use that.
> 
> I’m more curious whether we even need a named new value at all, or if setters 
> should just look like the following instead:
> 
>       set { sideLength = $0 / 4.0 }

This is great!
Why not have the opportunity to name the variable like in closures, but have it 
default to $0:

class Square {
  var sideLength: Double = 0.0
  var perimeter: Double {
    set { newPerimeter in
      sideLength = newPerimeter / 4.0
    }
  }
}

> 
> As this would be more consistent with anonymous closure arguments, rather 
> than using newValue which is arbitrary. I’ve never encountered an occasion 
> where I’ve needed a custom name, and I only use external vs internal names on 
> functions where I can make an external name that flows better, but perhaps 
> doesn’t mesh with my other internal variable names.
> 
>> On 6 May 2016, at 12:09, Ian Partridge via swift-evolution 
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Currently, the syntax for explicitly naming property setters is:
>> 
>> class Square {
>>   var sideLength: Double = 0.0
>> 
>>   var perimeter: Double {
>>     get {
>>       return sideLength * 4.0
>>     }
>>     set(newPerimeter) { // declares newPerimeter parameter, "let" not allowed
>>       sideLength = newPerimeter / 4.0
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> Compare this with how extraction of associated values from enumerations 
>> looks:
>> 
>> enum ServerResponse {
>>   case Failure(String)
>>   case Result(Int)
>> }
>> let response = ServerResponse.Result(404)
>> 
>> switch response {
>> case .Failure(let reason): // let is required here
>>   print(reason)
>> case .Result(let code):
>>   print(code)
>> }
>> 
>> For consistency, would it be better to allow/require:
>> 
>> class Square {
>>   var sideLength: Double = 0.0
>> 
>>   var perimeter: Double {
>>     get {
>>       return sideLength * 4.0
>>     }
>>     set(let newPerimeter) {  // declares newPerimeter parameter
>>         sideLength = newPerimeter / 4.0
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> The idea would apply to didSet{} and willSet{} too.
>> 
>> --
>> Ian Partridge
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to