on Mon Jul 11 2016, "L. Mihalkovic" <laurent.mihalkovic-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> Regards > (From mobile) > >> On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:24 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> on Sun Jul 10 2016, Jasdev Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hey Swift Evolution! >>> >>> Drafted up a small proposal that harmonizes the use of static functions and >>> static function properties in appropriate protocol conformance scenarios: >>> >>> https://github.com/Jasdev/swift-evolution/blob/static-func-static-var/proposals/XXXX-static-func-and-static-var-func-protocol-conformance.md >>> >>> Would love any feedback or edge cases I may have missed! >> >> Hi Jasdev, >> >> I wanted this once, before Swift 1 was released. Its lack was easy to >> work around and I have never wanted it since, so... I'm afraid I don't >> think it is worth complicating the language for. Your proposal shows >> how the feature *can be used*, but doesn't make a compelling case that it >> *will be very useful*. That's what would be needed to convince me. > > Have you looked into the design patterns it opens the door to, or how > it is used in languages where it is present? IME it has to do with > higher degrees of abstractions or more dynamic behaviors. Right, the latter. > Granted it is also not the only way to achieve that. Right. It's also not the most efficient way in most cases. It's better to store one class instance than a bunch of closures. > TypeScript might interest you if you have not yet looked into it > closely. Thanks, but the onus is on the proposer to make a case for his feature. I'm trying to explain how to do that. -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
