+1.  The only times I've ever had to use this outside of HoFs were dirty, dirty 
hacks that probably should have used this anyway.  I can stomach an extra bit 
of syntax everywhere if it means removing an inconsistency in the wider 
language.

~Robert Widmann

2016/04/15 0:57、Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> 
のメッセージ:

> We currently accept function type syntax without parentheses, like:
> 
>  Int -> Float
>  String -> ()
> 
> etc.  The original rationale aligned with the fact that we wanted to treat 
> all functions as taking a single parameter (which was often of tuple type) 
> and producing a tuple value (which was sometimes a tuple, in the case of void 
> and multiple return values).  However, we’ve long since moved on from that 
> early design point: there are a number of things that you can only do in a 
> parameter list now (varargs, default args, etc), implicit tuple splat has 
> been removed, and  the compiler has long ago stopped modeling function 
> parameters this way.  Beyond that, it eliminates one potential style war.
> 
> Given all this, I think it makes sense to go for syntactic uniformity between 
> parameter list and function types, and just require parenthesis on the 
> argument list.  The types above can be trivially written as:
> 
>  (Int) -> Float
>  (String) -> ()
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to