> On May 18, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I thought about this, but { $0 } is already a fairly compact way to express >> the identity function. > > It is, but I worry a bit about the core team's tendency to say "Oh, just use > a closure" whenever something like this comes up. A function/method/property > name can be merely *read*; a closure must be *interpreted*. And writing > closures is error-prone—a slip of the keys and you've written `{ 0 }` or `{ > 40 }` instead of `{ $0 }`, which look similar and (soon will) work in the > same expressions but behave completely differently. > > Naming operations is powerful; it helps you understand them better and it > helps you avoid fat-fingering them.
+1 > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > 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
