On 04.07.2016 14:17, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution wrote:
        * What is your evaluation of the proposal?

I agree that the current situation is incoherent. If the type system doesn't 
care about the labels, the labels probably shouldn't be in the type.

In the long run, it must be possible to label the parameters of a closure. But 
that labeling does not *necessarily* belong on the type; it could go on the 
name:

        // Old and busted
        let completion: (records: [Record]?, error: Error?) -> Void
        // New hotness
        let completion(records:error:): ([Record]?, Error?) -> Void


I really like this idea. Clearly separated "name" and "type" of the function/closure just like for like for any other "simple" variable like `let value: Int` The only note : I believe we should be still allowed to define func variable without labels, if I don't care about them.

let completion: ([Record]?, Error?) -> Void

And I don't think it would be terrible to remove the labels from the type 
before we add them to the name.


Support. But it will be great if we'll have both at the same time.

On the other hand, we could go the other direction and make the labels 
significant. Or—to address the `remove(from:)`/`add(to:)` critique—we could 
perhaps make the *internal* names significant, while considering the internal 
labels as part of the variable name. (Presumably both `remove(from:)` and 
`add(to:)` would be of type `(collection: WidgetCollection) -> Void`.)

I don't feel like this is correct direction. For me parameter labels definitely belongs to name of func variable, not to type.


Both options are sensible; the status quo is not. We should choose a direction 
and start going that way.

        * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change 
to Swift?

Yes. The type system is being a bit nonsensical here.

        * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Yes. Swift 3, breaking everything now, etc.

        * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, 
how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

Can't really think of much that's comparable.

        * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick 
reading, or an in-depth study?

Quick reading.

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to