> On 21 Nov 2016, at 08:42, Rien via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sure you can do that, but I rather write:
>
> struct A.B {…}
>
> than
>
> extension A { struct B {…} }
>
> The first seems much “swiftier” to me.
Hmm, objectively, it’s not “swiftier” is it, because Swift has had the
extension syntax since day 1 and not the dot syntax. What you actually mean is
“it looks nicer to me” which is an entirely subjective position, one with which
I agree, but I don’t think such arguments should carry much weight.
Actually, I’d like to see “it seems more swifty” and equivalent expressions
banned from the list. The concept isn’t well enough defined for a serious
discussion on the merits of proposed language features. /rant
> In fact, now that this “obvious” dot-notation has been pointed out, I wonder
> why this was not the initial implementation instead of the “extension”
> keyword.
The extension keyword is needed in the case where you are extending an existing
type to conform to a protocol. Given that we already have (and need) the
extension form and we can already do
extension A.B { struct C { … } }
is there an objective justification for adding a redundant way of doing the
same thing?
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
