Good point. A subscript basically a parameterized property, not a function. I'm in favor.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:18 AM, James Froggatt via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > Currently, the signature is: > subscript(_ example: Int) -> Element { > get { … } > set { … } > } > > The alternative, using a colon, would be: > subscript(_ example: Int) : Element { > get { … } > set { … } > } > > Sorry if that wasn't clear. > > This would be to better reflect the property-like nature of access. > > From James F > > On 10 Jul 2016, at 23:57, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> On Jul 9, 2016, at 11:48 AM, James Froggatt via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Subscripts are a hybrid of properties and functions, since they have a > parameter list, as well as getters and setters, so use of either symbol > will be unusual in this case. > >> > >> However, I think a colon is more suitable, since it implies the > possibility to set the value. > > > > Can you show us an example of the current syntax and your proposed > replacement? I'm not sure what you actually mean by "use colons". > > > > -- > > Brent Royal-Gordon > > Architechies > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
