> On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Xi Ge via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 5, 2016, at 5:39 PM, Xi Ge via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org >> <mailto:swift-dev@swift.org>> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 5, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Ben Langmuir <blangm...@apple.com >>> <mailto:blangm...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 5, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Xi Ge via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org >>>> <mailto:swift-dev@swift.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Swift-devs, >>>> I have tried to add a fixit to help developers using trailing closures >>>> more, motivated by my observation during WWDC that some developers >>>> do not even realize that we have such a feature. In my opinion, trailing >>>> closures are more concise, and once you get used to it, more readable; >>>> therefore users should adopt trailing closures whenever doing so >>>> introduces no ambiguity.
I prefer trailing closures for -> Void signatures and in-line closures for anything (notably sequences and collections) that is likely to be iterated through or chained functionally. I also prefer inline closures for items that have multiple states for callback (completion handlers, error handlers, etc, where there is going to be a test of some kind -- we don't have a Result type but if we did, it would fall here -- and contains error/value pairs) and trailing closures for no-state-will-execute such as GCD. -- E
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
