[Pitch] `init` accessors

Evolution Pitches
6

It's cool but the pitched syntax is extremely strange.

  1. I would not force newValue bacause that's not a setter where the value changes. Personally I would prefer value or initialValue to make it clearer.

  2. I really don't see why the developer has jump through these unusual syntactic grammar requirements:

struct S {
  var readMe: String

  var _x: Int

  var x: Int {
    init(newValue, initializes: _x, accesses: readMe) {
      print(readMe)
      _x = newValue
    }

    get { _x }
    set { _x = newValue }
  }
}

We could rather mimic the set accessor here.


struct S {
  var readMe: String

  var _x: Int

  var x: Int {
    init(initialValue) {
      print(readMe) // accesses
      self._x = initialValue // initializes
    }

    get { _x }
    set { _x = newValue }
  }
}

Just the plain init(initialValue) { ... } could be sufficient enough. I mean, why can't the compiler not figure out which stored properties are actually being initialized from the init accessor and which are read?

That makes the syntax much simpler and aligned. On top of that the initializes and accesses becomes fully transparent.

7 Likes