Sure, but that assumes that you know where the issue is. Since the app compiles and works fine, except for various glitches, you need to debug this (takes time). This is not preventing an issue that shouldn't happen in the first place.
> On May 18, 2016, at 8:20 PM, Karl via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since you’re using OSX - CMD + click, jumps to definition. > >> On 18 May 2016, at 07:09, Krystof Vasa via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> I've been an OS X developer for over a decade now and was a huge fan of >> ObjC, implementing ObjC runtime into FreeBSD kernel as a intern at Cambridge >> University and my Masters thesis was a modular ObjC runtime that ran on Win >> 3.11. With the advance of Swift, it was clear to me, however, that this is a >> point to say goodbye to ObjC and move to Swift. >> >> And so, I've migrated all my projects over 5 months into Swift, which is >> over 200 KLOC of code, with one project being 90 KLOC. This has lead >> unfortunately to various hiccups due to bugs in Swift, Xcode, compiler, >> where I was unable to build a project for a month, etc. - I've filed 84 bug >> reports at bugreport.apple.com over the past few months regarding developer >> tools (including Swift) and have begun closely watching the evolution of >> Swift. >> >> While I strongly disagree with the rejection of SE-0009, I understood the >> reasoning that it's a boilerplate to keep adding self. in front of all >> variables. I personally always refer to self when accessing instance >> variables (and methods), unless they are private variables starting with >> underscore. I know the underscore thing isn't very Swift-y, but on the other >> hand, reading the code you immediately know you are dealing with a private >> instance variable, not something local. >> >> This was until I spent 2 hours chasing a bug that was caused by the exact >> issue this proposal was trying to prevent. I was furious. >> >> a) When you read someone elses code and you see myVar.doSomething(), you >> assume it's refering to a local variable. Which is incredibly confusing, if >> this is an instance variable. Swift is all about compile-time checks and >> this is where it fails. >> >> b) If you indeed decide not to go with this proposal, please consider adding >> a warning option. When you take a look at LLVM warning options, I bet there >> would be a place for this. Let the user decide. I personally would >> immediately turn it on on all my projects. Don't make it an error, make it a >> warning. >> >> I speak to you as someone with quite a huge real-life experience with Swift, >> mainly in the last year - the question whether to force the reference to >> self is something that may be dividing the community, but I believe that >> most people with more developing experience would be all for this. At least >> as an option. >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> Krystof Vasa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
