+1 on removing the inference. I actually always declare the type for stored 
properties as well for better readability...

> On Apr 9, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Lucas Neiva via swift-evolution 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> (Forgot CC. How's that Discord coming along? 😜)
> 
> On 7 Apr 2017, at 13:07, Lucas Neiva <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I think declaring property types is beneficial to readability.
>> 
>> It seems to me like properties are on the same level as functions, where 
>> types are also not inferred. I see them both as “members”, if you like.
>> 
>> Another thing is that computed properties also require an explicit type, 
>> which sometimes trips me up a bit when mixing computed and normal properties.
>> 
>> On Apr 07, 2017, at 09:21 AM, Daniel Duan via swift-evolution 
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> In a discussion about inferring parameter types from default value, Slava 
>>> brought up some performance problems caused by type inference for stored 
>>> properties in side types:
>>> 
>>> https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170313/033882.html
>>>  
>>> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170313/033882.html>
>>> 
>>> Towards the end, the post mentioned that some Swift team members 
>>> contemplated requiring types for stored properties in type declarations. I 
>>> think this idea deserves some more attention. Hence this last minute 
>>> idea-floating.
>>> 
>>> In addition to solving a performance headache in implementation, there're 
>>> always the general benefit of making type declartion more explicit and 
>>> readable (clarity for reader should out-weigh pleasure of the author). 
>>> Making the
>>> language slightly more consistent (we are not inferring types for default 
>>> parameter values in function anyways).
>>> 
>>> The cons for doing this are obvious too: the inference makes the language 
>>> feels more friendly and is, undoubtedly, a beloved feature for many. This 
>>> would be a source breaking change.
>>> 
>>> Just thought I'd float the idea to gather some quick reaction. What do 
>>> y'all think?
>>> 
>>> Daniel Duan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution 
>>> <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

Reply via email to