It's a very weak 'disagree' :). I'm mostly hoping more people will add feedback and indicate whether they think that conversion is useful to them or not.
Austin On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
