Just left a comment on the bug; it's clear we need some sort of new syntax, and I'd like to throw out `foo(:)` as a candidate, by analogy with `[:]` being an empty dictionary. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 22:04 Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> You said "The ability to reference a function by only the first segment of > its name is likewise legacy of the original model..." — how else could you > refer to a nullary function? Even if labels were required for naming > (>0)-ary functions, there's still ambiguity between a nullary function and > a variable. > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:54 PM Joe Groff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 30, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Although there's no spelling for this... > https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3550 > > IMO, the way to spell `foo` with no arguments is just `foo`. If we > strictly required the labels for referring to n-ary functions, that would > make it unambiguous… > > -Joe > > _______________________________________________ > 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
