2016-07-04 1:18 GMT+03:00 Vladimir.S <[email protected]>: > > Right, there is some impact on existing code that was omitted >> in the proposal. And it wasn't considered during review. Awkward. >> > > Probably because some(many?) people (like me) did not understand that this > proposal is much bigger than "Just require parentheses on function types", > because IMHO the major idea of this proposal was disallow `Int->Int` syntax > but not to disallow void parameter for zero parameter functions. > > I hope community will provide opinions regarding this issue and about the > decision regarding the void parameter to argument-less functions, and if > that decision is really expected and was clearly mentioned in the proposal. > > Personally I think we need to implement the proposal in all areas except > this one and raise new proposal to make all things clear regarding > argument-less functions.
Formally, we should. But I wonder how often the feature being removed was used. I personally don't feel like it's that important. As Chris suggested, it may be enough to clarify it in SE-0066. We could add implicit convertion >> () -> T to (U) -> T >> I feel that is one constructive way out. >> > > Could you clarify the suggestion with some details? > Do you suggest, that we can pass ()->T where (U)->T is required? Yes. By the way, Austin Zheng seems to disagree with this.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
