Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Jul 2016, at 11:31, Taras Zakharko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, now that function type and function signature are officially separate > things,
I think we may have made a mistake in doing this and the implementation work is not done yet, so we are in time to reconsider things. Processes are not perfect, I do hope nobody gets too offended if I am suggesting we moved too hastily with this proposal without thinking everything through. It can happen. > we need means to treat them as separate things. In particular, we need a way > to force signatures on closure parameters (and maybe on some variables) while > leaving function variables generally signature-agnostic. The proposal is > incomplete in this regard. It attempts to solve one problem but actually > shifts is elsewhere instead. ... hence why I said that this proposal may have been accepted too hastily and if implementing it causes readability/usability/lack of context problems that is just as important as the hopeful benefits to the compiler. The compiler needs to be allowed to do a good job and helped too, but its job is to help us write better code and this proposal does not convince me as achieving that and is considered incomplete by at least a few others in this very thread too. > >> I wish the core team or the author of the proposal came to this thread and >> engaged again with the community. > > > I am quite sure that they are discussing this internally :) Also, its > weekend, let people get some rest! > > >> On 09 Jul 2016, at 10:56, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 9 Jul 2016, at 00:53, Jon Shier <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> While I can see why removing the labels from the type system would be a >>> good idea, I don’t see why calling the functions with labels would be >>> actively prohibited. That’s useful information for the developer to have, >>> and if the compiler doesn’t know them in some way, you can be assured >>> Xcode’s autocomplete won’t see them. >> >> I wish the core team or the author of the proposal came to this thread and >> engaged again with the community. >> >> I imagine scenarios of callbacks, say for an image downloader or something >> that ought to happen asynchronously, injected in a method, stored, and then >> used when the asynchronous operation completed one way or the other. >> How does this promote local reasoning so much stressed by Apple itself at >> WWDC when you have to jump through several hoops to have any idea what the >> callbacks does or what parameters and in which order it needs them? >> >> The benefits to the compiler should be weighed against the negative effects >> to every day's code and the bugs this may introduce in a safe by default >> promise language like Swift. >> >>>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 6:35 AM, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I still say that this is the case where we do take a stand and do ask for >>>> this proposal to be blocked and re-analised, I cannot believe that we are >>>> going to be addingthis kind of incosistency to the language and take >>>> readability/ease of local reasoning (which Apple stressed at the last WWDC >>>> once again) away. The community and the core team just finished >>>> bikeshedding a huge change to how API's are imported and how labels are >>>> used and how important they are and then we do this? >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Aw. It's really bad that labels are gone for closures at the call site >>>>>> 😢. IMHO, the same principles that encourage the use of labels for >>>>>> "normal" function calls should prevail here. >>>>> No need to feel bad — if I wasn't ignored (it's hard to notice if this >>>>> happens ;-), the argument has been considered. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, those labels may return in the future — although there is a >>>>> astoundingly long list of features that will be removed because their >>>>> implementation is flawed, and whose fans have been calmed down with the >>>>> argument that they'll be re-added in an improved form later ;-) >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
