> On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:32 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <br...@architechies.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I would love it if we found a way to retain something as concise as that >>>> shorthand. I'm working on a library where users will specify a collection >>>> of key paths pairs. This shorthand would be a very nice piece of sugar >>>> making the code expressing these collections (usually literals) quite a >>>> bit more readable. >>> >>> +1 for this. I think it will be somewhat common to pass around arrays of >>> these things, and a shorthand syntax of some sort would make that nicer. >>> That said, I don’t want to slow down the proposal, since I will be using >>> this feature the very second it becomes available. >> >> Agreed. >> >> One more thought on this: I don't think anyone really likes the >> #keyPath(Type, .key1.key2)` syntax; it's just the best we've come up with. >> If the syntax were instead this: >> >> #keyPath(Type).key1.key2 >> >> I think that would look cleaner and avoid drawing distinctions based on >> subtle punctuation differences. I don't think it would clash with old-style >> key paths since you can't have a key path to a type name anyway. And support >> for the leading-dot syntax would fall out of it quite naturally. > > I could get behind that (although it would stop us from extending KeyPaths). > One question in both cases: How do we represent keyPaths for static > properties?
Static properties are members of T.Type, so you would specify T.Type as the root. -Joe _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
