> On Dec 4, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 4, 2016, at 4:31 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Dec 3, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Erica Sadun <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> A majority of respondents prefer that argument names always be mentioned, >>> whether or not they *can* be omitted. Consensus is that it's unSwifty >>> to use pre-built `newValue` and `oldValue` arguments without mentioning >>> them first. >> >> For what it's worth, I don't agree that the default names are a problem. I >> think they're a helpful convenience which, nevertheless, must occasionally >> be overridden because they conflict with the name of something else. The >> names are well-chosen and virtually always read correctly. >> >> (Also FWIW, I'm not sure I've ever explicitly named the >> `oldValue`/`newValue` variable rather than using the implicit names.) >> >> I think a warning on using `oldValue` instead of `newValue` or vice versa >> would be very helpful and address the parts of this proposal which aren't >> motivated by mere style complaints. The rest I think is a style issue, and I >> don't think that style issue is nearly universally-agreed-upon or serious >> enough to motivate a breaking change affecting tons of property setters, >> property observers, and subscript setters. > > +1
Just MHO, not speaking for the core team: +1 to Brent's points. -Chris >> >> -- >> 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
