This is clean, but given knowledge of foo(bar:) syntax, its discoverability is low. Conversely, given knowledge of `foo()`, the discoverability of foo(bar:) would be low compared to `foo(bar:)`.
If backticks were the *only* option, and also worked as `foo(bar:)`, the consistency would be appealing. Although then if you had a function name which needed backticks, `foo`(bar:) would have to continue working, I suppose, so only allowing `foo(bar:)` isn't feasible. I imagine this would make for some very nice code completion, though — `foo(#^...^# could suggest the names of all the foo variants. On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Ben Rimmington <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 23 Feb 2017, at 14:23, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > > > What happens when you need the backticks for the function name itself? > We can't nest them. > > func `class`() {} > > `class`() // Function call. > > `class()` // Function reference. > > -- Ben > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
