Hi Travis, I’m certainly not a core contributor, but I could point you to the rejection email for this proposal, which you might not have seen:
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160104/005478.html <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160104/005478.html> It states that the core team felt that the proposal was not the right direction for Swift, and lists a few reasons. The main reason appears to be that enforcing a mandatory self for instance members would increase the visual clutter of the language, which is counter to Swift's goals of clarity and minimal boilerplate. That email links to Paul Cantrell’s response to the proposal, which is also a really good (and elucidating) read: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/002910.html <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/002910.html>. No need for flame or heat! Regards, Greg Power > On 23 May 2017, at 7:28 am, Travis Griggs via swift-users > <swift-users@swift.org> wrote: > > I’m trying to figure out how to ask this question without generating flame > and heat. Like tabs and spaces, under_scores and camelCase, whether or not > one thinks that a message dispatch receiver should be explicit or implicit > seems to be highly personal, (I think*) based on where/how you learned > programming, especially object oriented paradigms. Personally, I agree with > Matt Neuberg and this Swift proposal > (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0009-require-self-for-accessing-instance-members.md). > But I recognize there’s a community of others out there that think > otherwise, and I’m not interested in trying to convert them to my approach. > > What I *am* curious about is is what the core > contributors/architects/designers seem to prefer? Is there any sort of > consensus, or at least majority, that those doing the core work lean towards? > They don’t have to convince me or vice versa. It’s just frustrating when > collaborating with open source projects, that in this one area, there’s > really no direction I’ve seen come forth. > > For example, when Swift was waffling between functional and message oriented, > I heard Chris Lattner (and have since seen in style guides) recommendations > that if you can bind some behavior to data, you should, rather than leaving > it a free function. That was nice to hear, and not just because I agreed. It > was just nice to know which way the language would be leaning. > _______________________________________________ > swift-users mailing list > swift-users@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
