> On May 10, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> That said, I’m not sure I understand the concrete use-cases. When is this
> concept important? When is “Self” not good enough?
From my old mail on the subject:
> I would love to see a way to get the type of the "enclosing thing at compile
> time”. In my particular case, I’m using the type as a generic parameter to
> tag a created resource with something like:
>
> class Client: PropertyOwner {
> let intProperty = Client.property(“name”, Int(0))
> }
>
> where PropertyOwner has a static property<Owner, DataType>(...)
>
> With `Self` meaning the static version of the thing being compiled, I could
> at least write:
>
> class Client: PropertyOwner {
> let intProperty = Self.property(“name”, Int(0))
> }
>
> which would have the benefit of being harder to mess up due to copy-pasting
> between different PropertyOwner implementors.
and
> I was thinking about the syntax a bit further and it seems like the
> capability that would be added is like #file, in that it does some
> compile-time textual replacement. So, perhaps #Self would work?
>
> Also, along these lines, I would find use for call-site interpolation like
> #file has. I could then do a free function version of my property() call that
> was something like:
>
> func property(ownerType: PropertyOwner.Type = #Self, ...) { }
>
> which would only be callable from w/in things conforming to or subclassing
> PropertyOwner.
-tim
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
