> On May 25, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Adriano Ferreira <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I really like this idea and appreciate the effort. However, I’d rather have a > method similar to Ruby Object#tap <http://apidock.com/rails/Object/tap> and > not a free function. > > Well, since there’s no "Object class" in Swift, the way I see it is through a > protocol, much like the Then <https://github.com/devxoul/Then> project is > done. > > — A
In Swift, there's no root object like NSObject, which is what the Then project relies upon. I'm unfamiliar with `tap` but it looks similar to method cascading, which is on hold for Swift 4. -- E > >> On May 25, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Over the past couple of days, the Twitters have discovered some work I'd >> done on closure-based setup. >> It's clear that a demand is out there and strong for this kind of behavior, >> even without implicit `self` as >> part of the mix or cascading. In that light, I've put together the following: >> >> https://gist.github.com/erica/96d9c5bb4eaa3ed3b2ff82dc35aa8dae >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/96d9c5bb4eaa3ed3b2ff82dc35aa8dae> >> >> If the community demand is this high, I think we should re-consider pushing >> it before 3. >> Feedback as always welcome, including criticism.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
