+ 1 from me as well for the already stated reasons. - Dennis
> On May 28, 2016, at 2:15 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 27, 2016, at 6:15 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> The idea is simple: >>> >>> • Can we make return keyword optional in cases like this? >>> • Shouldn’t this behave like @autoclosure or @noescape? >> >> This actually doesn't have anything to do with @autoclosure or @noescape. >> Any one-expression closure can omit the `return` statement and have an >> inferred return type. >> >>> type A { >>> var characters: [Character] = … >>> var string: String { String(self.characters) } >>> var count: Int { 42 } >>> } >> >> Despite those inaccuracies, I do think that it's a good idea to permit >> single-expression accessors to omit the `return` statement; it will make >> them much less clunky. I would even extend this to cases where you use the >> `get` keyword: >> >> var string: String { >> get { String(self.characters) } >> set { characters = Array(newValue.characters) } >> } > > +1. And in single-expression functions as well. This is something that > should be consistent and allowed everywhere in the language. > >> >> -- >> Brent Royal-Gordon >> Architechies >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
