I like the .get syntax better than \
I’d be okay with the slightly more verbose .getter
Foo.a could return a tuple: (getter: (Foo) -> () -> A, setter: (Foo) -> (A) ->
())
> Recently I’ve seen some upcoming changes for #keyPath, but the whole things
> look a bit messy to me. Today I came up with a simple idea of code
> generation, but I thought maybe it would be nice to make this a part of the
> language?
>
> Look at this code:
>
> publicclassFoo {
> publicvara:Int=0
> }
>
> publicfinalclassProperty<U, V>{
> publicvar`get`: (U) ->() ->V
> publicvar`set`: (U) ->(V) ->Void
>
> publicinit(getter:@escaping(U) ->() ->V, setter:@escaping(U) ->(V) ->Void) {
> self.get = getter
> self.set = setter
> }
> }
>
> // Generated code
> publicextensionFoo{
> publicstaticleta:Property<Foo,Int>= {
> returnProperty<Foo,Int>(getter: { instance ->(Void) ->Intin
> return{returninstance.a} },
> setter: { instance ->(Int) ->Voidin
> return{ value ->Voidininstance.a = value } })
> }()
> }
>
> letfoo = Foo()
> foo.a =5
>
> let_a = Foo.a.get(foo)()
> print(_a)
>
> Foo.a.set(foo)(10)
> print(foo.a)
>
>
> The idea is to make properties work the same way the methods work right now.
> That will allow things like tweening properties in the game engine, by simply
> passing the property to some sort of ActionManager.
>
> Of course, this can be achieved by code-generator, but I bet this will be
> very ineffecient in terms of performance.
>
> The only draw back here from top of my head: It will be impossible to have
> instance- and static- variables with the same name.
>
> What do you think about this?_______________________________________________
> 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
