Jaden, In that very specific example with generics, couldn't you just explicitly specify foo<[T]>(bar: bar)?
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:39 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Without it, there could be ambiguity. Observe: > > func foo<T>(bar: [T]...) { > foo(bar: bar) // splat or pass single arg? > } > > - Jaden Geller > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 20, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Christopher Boyd via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Vladimir, > > True, but does the extra syntax actually accomplish anything? > > From my example: > > - func arithmeticMean(numbers: Double...) -> Double { > - return add(numbers) / Double(numbers.count) > - } > > > It's clear that the intent is to pass all the numbers to add(). > > What, exactly, does adding the #splat() syntax achieve? It doesn't add > any additional clarity. > > Moreover, I don't think #splat has been accepted as a proposal yet. > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:19 PM Vladimir.S <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [offtopic] >> On 20.05.2016 19:08, Christopher Boyd via swift-evolution wrote: >> > Certainly, #splat would work, but it may be slightly more confusing to >> > someone that hasn't seen the splat operator before: >> So, he/she will open swift documentation or drop the question to google >> once, and from that moment will know what #splat means. >> [/offtopic] >> > _______________________________________________ > > > 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
