[swift-evolution] Lambda function syntax

[James Campbell]

I don't think either are that nice, we could do a ruby thing and use "do".
The do expresses that we are passing in a block :)  and the arguments are
on the outside of the closure which matches iit elsewhere:

heyThere() do |hi, there|
{

}

we could allow anon functions like so:

heyThere((hi, there){
})

But then its inconsistent, so I don't mind what swift does now :) as its
consistent whether its a closure block or a argument we are passing in.

Regarding the "=>" vs "in" debate, they are both obtuse to me. In some-ways
"in" is better as it reads to me as "the arguments in this closure" so I
would much prefer "in". I know this is subjective but that's just my two
cents ;)

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>
> love trailing closures
>
> I wouldn't go that far and just say "})" looks ugly — but that has the
> same implications ;-)
> With parameters, trailing closures loose a lot of their appeal, and an
> alternative syntax ("func(x: Int) {" instead of "{ x: Int in}" isn't that
> bad for trailing closure either.
>
> The only obvious downside is the "$0" shortcut would be confusing with
> "func() {" (but not so much with "func {"…).
> Speaking of "$0", you could argue why it is allowed in closures and not in
> methods… but I'm in some discord with $0 anyways:
> It is really nice for small constructs, but drawing the line when to
> discourage their use is tough (at least to tough for the compiler to
> enforce a rule).
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>


-- 
 Wizard
james at supmenow.com
+44 7523 279 698
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20151223/0822dcad/attachment.html>