+1 as well. It always feels a little weird to be writing a setter inside something that says it returns what should be the argument. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 00:05 Patrick Pijnappel via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
