Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Ben Rimmington <m...@benrimmington.com> wrote: > > 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> I would like to see both of these problems resolved. If somebody put together a solid proposal for this I would probably support it (depending on details of course). > > -- Ben > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
