On Tue, Jan 5, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 2016, at 8:07 AM, Dennis Lysenko via swift-evolution
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone,
> >
> > The sticking point here is that xcode generates the first syntax
> > automatically.
> >
> > Simply filing a radar about this would be useless, so I believe the
> > original proposal is meant to sort-of "light a fire" under the Xcode team;
> > by introducing a new language feature they would be forced to support it.
> >
> > Personally, I think it should just be fixed in Xcode as well, but it's not
> > that simple.
>
> FWIW, the algorithms used by Swift’s code completion in Xcode are part of
> sourcekit, which is included in Swift.org.
Oh really? So I could actually go in there and fix it to stop generating
closures that look like
foo { () -> Void in
<#code#>
}
(the `() -> Void in` is rather pointless)
In that case, I suppose it makes sense to actually discuss proposed code
completion changes on this list. On the subject of disabling trailing closure
syntax, it might make sense to have Xcode not use it automatically when the
function has 2 closure parameters (sometimes I do want the second closure to be
trailing-closure, sometimes I don't, but it seems reasonable to err on the side
of not having it be trailing-closure if there's more than 1 closure in the
call).
-Kevin Ballard
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
