This is why god gave us bike sheds.
Maybe "My earned interest rate this year is \({02.2}theRate)%!"
-- E
> On Apr 18, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Ricardo Parada <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What would that look like?
>
>
>
>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would also be supportive of removing varargs for now, in favor of a
>>> rethought design when generics are completed.
>>>
>>> In their current form, varargs are fairly limited—because they're mapped
>>> onto an array, the argument types must be homogeneous, so either your
>>> function can only usefully take a single type of argument, or you
>>> potentially lose information because they have to be upcast to a common
>>> supertype or Any in order to build the array.
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced that varargs produce code that is much cleaner than the
>>> array version. Is this:
>>>
>>> String(format: "%@ is %d years old", name, age)
>>>
>>> that much cleaner than:
>>>
>>> String(format: "%@ is %d years old", arguments: [name, age])
>>
>> I would like to see format strings go away and be replace with safer inline
>> annotations.
>>
>> -- E, somewhat agnostic on variadics
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
