If the original rationale is gone, shouldn’t we also get rid of the empty tuple-type and replace it by a full-blown Void instead of Void being a typealis for the empty tuple?
(Int) -> Float (String) -> Void () -> Void () -> Double It looks more consistent to me. > On 15 Apr 2016, at 06:57, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > 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
