> On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Radosław Pietruszewski <[email protected]> wrote: >> I follow the "Rule of Kevin", which is not language enforced. Parens around >> functional >> closures (->T), not around procedural (->Void) ones. This promotes >> "language construct"-like >> Void calls, avoids compiler parsing issues when chaining (or using "guard", >> "if", etc). It lets >> me know instantly how the closure is used. >> >> While I was originally reluctant to adopt it, its advantages have become >> self-evident over time. >> This ends up being slightly wordier, especially in the few cases you need to >> use argument labels. >> >> I think it's worth it. > > I don’t follow the Rule of Kevin myself, although I’m not against it either, > and I see why some people would like it. > > But, if we’re going to have trailing closures at all (which seems desirable > for creating things that look like language features), enforcement based on > syntactic preference doesn’t make sense to me. > > This really reminds me of a “remove implicit self” discussion. Some people > (me included) were against, because they disliked the noisiness of “self” > everywhere. Others argued that the implicitness is somewhat unsafe. A valid > position to take. But it’s a kind of thing teams can use a linter for, if > they want to enforce it as a rule. > > Trailing closures seem like a similar thing. We could remove it altogether > (although I think that would be a shame), or let’s just leave it up to > preference (and developing guidelines) on where to use them. > > Best, > — Radek
Following a style rule is just like using a linter. It's not language mandated and I have not argued for enforcement. -- E
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
