Oops, I could've sworn that I did change the subject! Thanks, Adrian.
> On Nov 20, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Adrian Zubarev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Forwarding your message to the right thread. > > Please use this subject pattern when replying to something: > > Re: + [swift-listname] + Topic name > > As for the current thread: > > Re: [swift-evolution] Proposal: Allow "flat" declaration of nested types > > Best regards, > > > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 20. November 2016 um 20:25:50, Zach Wolfe via swift-evolution > ([email protected]) schrieb: > >> +14689 on this one. I'm working on a project right now where I have a >> significant amount of subtypes inside one of my types (gameboy emulator, >> creating abstractions on the io registers to make them more pleasant to deal >> with) and I have the subtypes split up into a bunch of files. With current >> syntax, all of these files are forced to adhere to the following pattern: >> extension IORegisters { >> struct X { body } >> } >> >> With this proposal, all of these files could be unindented to the left like >> so (and would arguably be more clear): >> struct IORegister.X { body } >> >> I'm in favour of allowing methods and computed properties to be declared in >> this way as well: >> func A.doSomething() {} >> var A.computedProperty: B {} >> >> I also agree with the notion that this proposal should be viewed as >> syntactic sugar - a short-form way of writing extensions, nothing more - and >> as such should not have any weird semantic differences from them. >> >> Also, this is my first reply on this list, hi everyone! >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
