[swift-evolution] [Pre-proposal] Fix function type grammar
austinzheng at gmail.com
Sun Jul 3 19:16:41 CDT 2016
It's a very weak 'disagree' :). I'm mostly hoping more people will add
feedback and indicate whether they think that conversion is useful to them
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 2016-07-04 1:18 GMT+03:00 Vladimir.S <svabox at gmail.com>:
>> Right, there is some impact on existing code that was omitted
>>> in the proposal. And it wasn't considered during review. Awkward.
>> Probably because some(many?) people (like me) did not understand that
>> this proposal is much bigger than "Just require parentheses on function
>> types", because IMHO the major idea of this proposal was disallow
>> `Int->Int` syntax but not to disallow void parameter for zero parameter
>> I hope community will provide opinions regarding this issue and about the
>> decision regarding the void parameter to argument-less functions, and if
>> that decision is really expected and was clearly mentioned in the proposal.
>> Personally I think we need to implement the proposal in all areas except
>> this one and raise new proposal to make all things clear regarding
>> argument-less functions.
> Formally, we should. But I wonder how often the feature being removed was
> used. I personally don't feel like it's that important. As Chris suggested,
> it may be enough to clarify it in SE-0066.
> We could add implicit convertion
>>> () -> T to (U) -> T
>>> I feel that is one constructive way out.
>> Could you clarify the suggestion with some details?
>> Do you suggest, that we can pass ()->T where (U)->T is required?
> Yes. By the way, Austin Zheng seems to disagree with this.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution