> On May 5, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Joe Groff <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On May 5, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 5, 2016, at 10:03, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On May 5, 2016, at 8:59 AM, Alex Hoppen via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Say you have the function `foo() -> Int`. Then `foo()` calls `foo` and >>>> returns its return value of type `Int` – not a reference to the function >>>> of type `Void -> Int`. >>> >>> Right. >>> >>> That said, what is wrong with just “foo”? >> >> As pointed out in the original post, that can refer to both ‘foo()’ and >> ‘foo(bar:)’ today. > > We could change that, so that to refer to `foo(bar:)` you must use the full > compound name.
Right. that seems like the most logical solution to this problem, if it is really significant enough to fix. -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
