I have to say that nuance is basically lost on me. If I assign a variable I know when I use it I get a type back based on “:”. If I call a function it has parameters that are defined as : type, if I use a function that ends with a definition “)” [end of parameter list; beginning of type of function] “:” it specifies the “type” of function (what I expect when I call the function).
I have always associated “arrows” with things like mathematical functions, as such when I switch back and forth between languages I immediately switch back to reading arrows in regards to functions. It probably is only compounded by the other languages that I use where they tend to use -> or => to represent an arrow. But then each person’s sensibilities are different :p > On 2015-12-24, at 17:44:52, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm completely against replacing '->' by ':' it would make unreadable the >> declaration of a function taking a closure as parameter, or returning one >> (among other things). > > That's definitely right: Two different separators only shift the problem by > one level, but hopefully it won't become common to deal with "functions > having functions as parameters that have function parameters that… ;-) > Also there is the different meaning of ":" ("is a...") and "->" ("returns a…") > > _______________________________________________ > 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
