[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0066: Standardize function type argument syntax to require parentheses
gwendal.roue at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 01:21:04 CDT 2016
> Le 26 avr. 2016 à 08:07, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> a écrit :
> On Apr 25, 2016, at 10:48 PM, Gwendal Roué <gwendal.roue at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Le 26 avr. 2016 à 07:17, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> a écrit :
>>> On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>> Here are two things to improve the proposal and make it more clear:
>>>> I'd like the Motivation section to be much more explicit. I get the argument of ambiguity, OK, but I don't see the problems it creates. I personally did not have any trouble yet, and this section does not enlighten me. Do we create problems out of thin air, here?
>>> Fair enough. This is one of many recent proposals which are about cleaning up minor inconsistencies in the language, not because they cause excessive practical usage problems, but because they are wrong for the long term shape of the language.
>> I was expecting something like that.
>> I personally have no problem with changes that the *language implementers* see as necessary. You know better, after all. I can imagine how the grammar inconsistencies we're talking about here belong to a general maintenance problem.
>> I'll just hope that Swift won't become too inflexible, and that you'll figure out a way to protect the warm feeling that brought early Swift users in. And I'm targeting the "should we require" questions of the "Related questions" section of the proposal :-)
> I understand exactly what you mean. Perhaps your concern is a result of the character of many of these recent proposals: because we’re trying to get things settled for Swift 3, we’re hyper-focused on front-loading the “things we want to take away”, rather than spending time on sugar and other things that make the language feel more nice. The rationale for this approach is sound IMO (sugar can be added at any time later) but I can understand how it would feel like we’re "taking away” without “giving anything back” in this respect.
Your sentences are truly relieving, because we not often read such a balanced view here. We all know St Exupery's famous sentence about perfect designs that have nothing else to take away. This does not mean stripping UX away, and requires a clear consciousness of the desired sugar. This is very difficult, I totally agree.
More information about the swift-evolution