If it would be possible to make objects callable, wouldn't that also go in the same direction as subscripts currently? One could also implement it with the syntax for callable functions (in this case anonymous - without a name). Instead of this:
subscript(index: Int) -> T we could also write func (_ index: Int) -> T On the call side it would change from this: list[3] to list(3) I know that it's not necessary and not even better readable, but it goes in the same direction in my opinion and is worth considering. What do you think? ______________________ Benjamin Herzog On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, at 10:21 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution wrote: > > on Tue Jul 11 2017, Robert Bennett <rltbennett-AT-icloud.com> wrote: > > > Just realized that even inout functions don’t let you do > > member(object) = value. > > The other difference is that an inout function can't be used to get a > member from an immutable value, whereas a keypath/subscript/property > access can. > > > -- > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > 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
