John, IIRC you had some reason why this wasn't a great idea, but I can't remember it. It seems useful to me too, if not something that comes up too often.
Jordan > On Dec 20, 2015, at 2:46 , Alexandre Lopoukhine via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dmitri, > > This is a better example than any that I have come up with so far as to why > “rethrows” should be a part of the signature. You shouldn’t have to use > “try!” to apply a non-throwing function, like {print($0)} to “forEach”. > > — Sasha > > >> On 20 Dec 2015, at 13:37, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alexandre, >> >> I think for this use case we don't actually need 'rethrows' to become >> a part of the closure type, we just need the compiler to allow and >> "instantiate" it in more places. >> >> The case where we would need 'rethrows' to become a first class part >> of the type system is if we wanted 'rethrows' to be a part of the >> signature of the closure itself, for example: >> >> (swift) let forEach = [ 10, 20, 30 ].forEach >> // forEach : (@noescape (Int) throws -> Void) throws -> () = (Function) >> >> Here, a more precise type would be (@noescape (Int) throws -> Void) >> rethrows -> Void. >> >> Dmitri >> >> -- >> main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if >> (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
