Sent from my iPad
> On May 10, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Austin Zheng <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm partial to #This or #ThisType. > Can you elaborate on why? This feels out of place to me in the Swift and Objective-C world. > /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] >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
