I'm partial to #This or #ThisType. /bikeshed
Austin > On May 10, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPad > >> On May 10, 2016, at 10:56 AM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 10, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> As a compile-time substitution, it could be used in any and all of the >>> examples in your bullet list as a literal text replacement.. >>> >>> Quick rundown: >>> >>> struct A { >>> ...#Self... // #Self is substituted by A >>> } >>> >>> class B { >>> ...#Self... // Self is substituted by B >>> } >>> >>> class C { >>> ... #Self... // Self is substituted by C, which is the defining type at >>> compile time >>> } >> >> I think it would be surprising if #Self produced the name of the enclosing >> static type: Self produces the dynamic type, and we’d want to preserve >> consistency if it were named #Self. > > That's a fair critique. Having a more distinct name will make it clear that > the behavior is completely unrelated to Self. > > How about #Type or #StaticType? > >> >> -Chris >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
