> On Feb 27, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> These is very unfortunate as a solution for “spreading” a collection or >> tuple so that It can be applied to function taking a variadic. >> It makes sense on the declaration site but not on the call site. >> >> someFunc(@nonVariadic [1]) >> someFunc(@variadic [1]) >> >> There is nothing special about variadic/ spreading that would warrant an >> attribute. >> >> I think using attributes is not different than using a keyword like c# uses. >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7580277/why-use-the-params-keyword >> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7580277/why-use-the-params-keyword> >> >> Do we really want to tag every array/tuple with a @variadic or @nonVariadic >> tag when packing and unpacking parameters? >> >> variadic/ spreading (AKA packing / unpacking ) is a well known concept to >> most languages. > > I have the impression there is a misunderstanding about the proposal: > It would not only make the variadics-syntax superflous, but also the whole > splatting-magic. > There would only be functions that accept arrays, and you could freely choose > to feed them a comma-seperated list instead. > The attribute would be written in the function declaration only — and we > could even decide that it isn't needed at all, and simply accept lists > wherever an array is expected.
Perhaps. Implicit splat behavior was removed for Tuples; I don’t see why we would reintroduce it for Array like constructs. https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0029-remove-implicit-tuple-splat.md#alternatives-considered <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0029-remove-implicit-tuple-splat.md#alternatives-considered> I am in favor in explicit splat behavior but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Its tagged as low priority.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
