[swift-evolution] Utilizing arguments without meaningful internal names

Jessy Catterwaul mr.jessy at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 19:18:22 CST 2016

> How do you handle overloading? `let` shadows, while `func` overloads.
It does now, but closures can’t currently be overloaded, which doesn’t make sense. You can’t store two overloads in closures that have the same names as those functions. This must end at some point.

> Also, what is actually gained by eliminating the keyword marking functions as different from constants?

Simplicity. Having both functions and closures in the language is complexity. I doubt it’s needed but haven’t heard otherwise.

> So, how many people know how to type ƒ? I sure don’t.
There aren’t that many keys on a keyboard and only using them leads to nonsense like $0. Hold option and type F. It’s easier to learn than making any Swift compile.

>> 3. $ is ugly and should be changed to .
> Which already has a different meaning, looking up a static property or method on the contextually expected type.
No, you can’t have a static property named with a number.

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list