On 22.04.2016 22:27, L. Mihalkovic wrote:
Void seems unequivocal, while () seems to beg for a context to be fully
understood
Personally I don't insist to remove the Void, but actually I'd prefer to
choose some only one variant how we can express an emtpy result. IMO there
is something wrong for me if we have
func f1() -> () {...}
func f2() -> () {...}
in one source file and have
func fM() -> Void {..}
func fN() -> Void {..}
in another. Additionally this will cause questions of those who's new in
Swift. But OK. Not a huge problem.
What I really don't like is that we can have all this:
func f1() -> (Void) {..}
func f2(Void) -> ((Void)) {..}
func f3() -> (((()))) {..}
func f4(((Void))) -> (Void) {..}
func f5() -> ((Void)) {..}
func f6((())) -> (((()))) {..}
and all is equivalent for
func f() -> () {..}
Why(what for) this all is possible? I'd like to remove this weird "feature"
from Swift. Lets say compilation error if we have () in () or Void in ().
Opinions?
Regards
On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:28 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
On Apr 22, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
About the "Void".. I'm +1 on this idea, but asking myself if we can
freely remove 'Void' from our language at all without any problem? Can't
find the answer. It seems like we can, IMO using the syntax like () ->
() is OK, clear and explicit, especially in "functional" word.
I like having Void as a typealias of (), and would prefer to retain it in
the language if possible.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto: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
