IMO +1 for Антон's suggestion, but
"It will also eliminate situation when you can pass () argument to a () → T
function."
What do you think about the result "type":
typealias f1 = () -> Void
typealias f2 = () -> ((Void))
typealias f3 = () -> (())
typealias f4 = () -> ((((((()))))))
They are all equal definition now. In your opinion, should we change this
also in some way?
On 22.04.2016 11:12, Антон Жилин via swift-evolution wrote:
+1, but this proposal need further work.
Specification of the new function grammar is needed.
Currently, it looks like:
function-type → type
<https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Types.html#//apple_ref/swift/grammar/type>|throws|_opt
|->|type
<https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Types.html#//apple_ref/swift/grammar/type>
It is already false, because some attributes can only be used in function
types.
I suggest to rewrite it to something like:
/function-type/ → |(| /function-parameter-types/_opt |)| |->| /type/
/function-type/ → |(| /function-parameter-types/_opt |)| |throws| |->| /type/
/function-type/ → |(| /function-parameter-types/_opt
|)| |rethrows| |->| /type/
/function-parameter-types/ → /function-parameter-type/
/function-parameter-types/ → /function-parameter-type/ |,|
/function-parameter-types/
/function-parameter-type/ → /function-parameter-attributes/ /type/
It will also eliminate situation when you can pass () argument to a () → T
function.
Function types Void->T will need to be migrated.
- Anton
_______________________________________________
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
