When would you want to use this instead of something like `button[imageFor: .normal]` ?
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > Slightly related to this, I would really love to have non-subscript > parameterized properties. It would allow us to write > > button.image(for: .normal) = image > > instead of > > button.setImage(image, for: .normal) > > The same can be achieved through subscripts, but it’s not always as nice. > It would bring subscripts and computed properties closer together, which > also seems to be the goal of your proposal. Perhaps the two ideas could be > combined? > > > Subscripts are a hybrid of properties and functions, since they have a > parameter list, as well as getters and setters, so use of either symbol > will be unusual in this case. > > > > However, I think a colon is more suitable, since it implies the > possibility to set the value. > > > > > > In the future, if we add throwing getters/ setters: > > > > subscript(_ position: Int) ->Element { > > get { > > return … > > } > > throwing set { > > … > > } > > } > > > > Should this require ‘throws ->Element’? Using a colon also removes this > potentially confusing case. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
