On 07.07.2016 17:29, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution wrote:
> Questions about that proposal are often risen on the list. > Some think that we will still be able to supply () argument > to () -> T functions. > > To clear that up completely, I suggest adding this grammar change > to SE-0066 or one of the newer proposals. Key idea is that parentheses > are part of function type grammar and have nothing common with tuples > or unit type.Sure, that makes sense to me. Please submit a PR that expands on SE-0066 when this settles, I don’t think we need another review cycle. Thank you! -Chris As SE-0110 is now accepted, you may want to take a look at the pull request: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/415
1. I still believe that sending () to function declared as 'func foo()' should be discussed separately from both(SE-0066,SE-0110), as was not mentioned explicitly in proposals and can have more impact on current source code than expected in proposals. But it seems no body else care of this, so OK, probably I'm not right, I give up. Let's change this.
2. But *do* believe the SE-0066 proposal should be updated in "Impact on existing code" part to show how code that relies on the feature of sending Void aka () to empty-parameter list function should be changed and how "The migrator will automatically add parentheses to existing code when moving from Swift 2 to Swift 3" in this case. Because right now this section in proposal is just not true.
_______________________________________________ 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
