[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Adjusting `inout` Declarations for Type Decoration

Trent Nadeau tanadeau at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 17:51:54 CST 2016

Please see my proposal and the associated discussion thread at "[Proposal]
Use inout at function call sites".

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Charles Kissinger via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> Sorry, I wasn’t clear at all there. I was thinking of the most common case
> where there is either only one parameter or the inout parameter is the
> first one. Then there will typically be no argument label involved at the
> call site. In that case ‘inout’ will be the first word inside the parens at
> the call site (assuming it replaces ‘&’). If it also is kept in its current
> position in function declarations, it will be in that same leading position
> in declarations and (I’m assuming) people will have an easy time
> remembering where to put it.
> When there is a label involved, it is a different story. I was implicitly,
> and probably wrongly, assuming that would be a much less common case in
> practice. A poorly worded, and probably poorly reasoned, argument on my
> part, though I still don’t see any great advantage to replacing ‘&'.
> —CK
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Charles Kissinger <crk at akkyra.com> wrote:
> The related idea of replacing ‘&’ with ‘inout’ at the call site seems
> completely contradictory to this proposal. Developers would then have to
> remember that the ‘inout’ goes before the argument at the call site but
> after it in the function definition. That seems like a constant source of
> mis-typings and something that would be viewed as an inconsistency in the
> language. Or do people want to put it after the argument name at the call
> site too? It seems a little like change just for the sake of change, IMO.
> If you have a function
> f(x: Int) {}
> you call it with f(8), and potentially f(x: 8). Even when labeled, the 8
> value is to the right of the colon.
> Now consider
> f(x: inout Int) {}
> you call it with f(&y) or f(inout y), and with a label, you'd call it f(x:
> &y) or f(x: inout y).
> It seems  consistent to me.
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Trent Nadeau
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160129/73982a6c/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list