On May 10, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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.
I haven’t thought about this in depth and completely misunderstood the proposal before :-) If I understand, this is simply a shortcut to avoid having to spell out the static type name, most useful when copying/pasting code or when the type name is long. That argues for keeping it short (a knock against StaticSelf). Also, I think it would make sense to drop the #: Self doesn’t have it for example, and that is the closest relative. That said, I’m not sure I understand the concrete use-cases. When is this concept important? When is “Self” not good enough? -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
