Re: <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/644>
> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:16, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > I think the language is best served if all unbound members are accessible > using the same syntax. IMO this proposal does the right thing by choosing > consistency with existing language features. The current syntax for unbound > methods works and hasn't caused any confusions I'm aware of in practice. > > I don't feel too strongly about what syntax we use as long as it's concise > and works for accessing all unbound members. If people want to make the case > for using `#` instead of `.` to do this I won't object but I won't be a vocal > advocate either. However, I think that should be an independent proposal if > somebody wants to pursue it rather than a bike shed on this proposal which > would only lead to inconsistency between key paths and unbound methods if it > succeeds. A new syntax for key paths and function references could resolve: * the "compound name syntax for nullary functions" problem; <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170220/032890.html> * the source-breaking change of SE-0042 (if reconsidered for Swift 4); <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0042-flatten-method-types.md> -- Ben _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
