> On Nov 18, 2017, at 1:44 AM, Jean-Daniel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> …
>>
>> In Ruby, `myObj.name()` is equivalent to `myObj.name`, and either works. In
>> Swift, I don’t see that it’s possible to make both work with Chris’s
>> proposal.
>
> IIUC, the goal is not to make swift look and behave the same as ruby or
> python, but to be able to use ruby or python object in a swift way (without
> indirect call and other nasty constructions). I don’t see requiring the
> .property syntax and prohibiting the .property() one as an issue. I would
> even say this is the thing to do, as it would make the swift code more
> understandable to Swift dev that are not used to Ruby.
It really wouldn’t. Zero-arg Ruby methods are a mixture of property-like things
that would certainly not use parens in Swift, and function-like things that
certainly would:
// Idiomatic Swift:
post.author.name.reversed()
// Swift bridging to Ruby…
// …if no-args methods •must• use parens:
post.author().name().reverse()
// …if no-args methods •can’t• use parens:
post.author.name.reverse
If the goal is to make Swift mostly look like Swift even when bridging to Ruby,
then the bridge needs to support both access forms.
Cheers, P
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
