<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 5, 2017, at 1:05 AM, Tino Heth <<a href="mailto:2th@gmx.de" class="">2th@gmx.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi there,</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">I think it would be better if we permitted an implicit conversion between (T…) -> () and ([T]) -> ()</span></div></blockquote></div>There has been a proposal to replace the "…" with a "variadic"-annotation (on arrays, or even on all types that can be expressed as arrays): <a href="https://github.com/Haravikk/swift-evolution/blob/a13dc03d6a8c76b25a30710d70cbadc1eb31b3cd/proposals/nnnn-variadics-as-attribute.md" class="">https://github.com/Haravikk/swift-evolution/blob/a13dc03d6a8c76b25a30710d70cbadc1eb31b3cd/proposals/nnnn-variadics-as-attribute.md</a></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>This sounds like a cosmetic proposal that doesn’t change semantics, so I don’t think it’s directly related to the change I’m proposing.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Slava</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">The idea to accept array literals wherever a set, array etc. is expected came up in the discussion as well.</div><div class=""><div class="">Interoperability with C has not been part of the debate, but besides that, imho it should be possible to get rid of varargs completely.</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Imho the whole thread didn't receive the treatment it deserved because it happened in a very busy timeframe, but I wanted to asked the original author if he wants to continue working on the idea.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Afaics, the issue you found would be directly affected by the change in question, so I'm curious about your opinion on it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards,</div><div class="">Tino</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>