> On May 10, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On May 10, 2016, at 9:03 AM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>
> Either of those would make more sense to me than using # as a distinguisher
> for dynamic vs static. This isn’t what we use # for.
>
Another suggestion was StaticSelf. Any opinion on that one? Also, do you
think we should just drop the # altogether?
If we find a name we can agree on and there is no significant opposition is
this a proposal that could make it into Swift 3? I would be willing to write
one if that is the case.
-Matthew
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
