> Am 10.05.2016 um 18:41 schrieb Timothy Wood via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>> On May 10, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yep, understood. It's perfectly clear to me but I understand why Chris is
>> concerned about it having potential to confuse people. It is a pretty
>> subtle difference especially since Self and #Self are the same in some
>> contexts. In any case, I would be content to live with any name that wins
>> out.
>
> Ah, OK -- it sounds like we just differ on what would be least confusing =)
>
> The other proposed name of #StaticSelf, seems like it would be very clear (if
> a bit redundant and longer than needed, once you’ve come across it once or
> twice). I could certainly live with #StaticSelf.
In that case StaticSelf would be sufficient IMHO. The # should only be needed
to distinguish between Self and #Self.
So:
Self, #Self
Self, StaticSelf
DynamicSelf, StaticSelf
As far as I understand #Self should be the type of the implementor
(ImplementorSelf?) or conforming type (ConformingSelf?).
How would this work with default methods?
protocol A {
func f() -> #Self
init()
}
extension A {
func f() -> #Self { return init() } // what type has #Self here?
}
class C : A {}
let c = C().f() // what type has c here?
-Thorsten
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
