> On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jan 1, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> On Jan 1, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Ethan Diamond <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> FWIW I don't think the backlash to the use of ^ with Obj-C blocks was >>> because of the carat itself, >> >> Fair enough, different people have different objections. I’m sure some >> people love blocks syntax :-) >> >>> but because of the inconsistency of the syntax in different contexts. >>> Sometimes the return type was after the ^, sometimes before. Sometimes you >>> had to use (^). Sometimes the carat had the name of the block with it >>> ^functionName. None of it fit in with the [object methodName] syntax of the >>> language itself. >> >> No, it fit perfectly with C. Blocks are an extension to C, not technically >> an Objective-C extension. > > I wouldn’t say it fit perfectly. It matched C’s function pointer syntax, so > it fit as well as that. However, C’s function pointer syntax is kind of > horrible, so. > > Not that that is the fault of anyone on the Objective-C team, of course. > > Charles > In the context of C, it is as good as it can be, and actually a bit nicer than some function pointers are, though you can always C your way to something nicer looking which the typedefs generally do (or if the old preprocessor define macros).
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
