[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Variadics as Attribute
me at lmpessoa.com
Wed Jul 20 15:25:05 CDT 2016
I'm strongly opposed to this too. I'm not only not fond of the
proposed syntax but I also don't really see how allowing other types
in variadics will help anything. Also, there may be necessary more
complex code to support all the extra (or even previously unknown)
types that could be used with this syntax, making the language much
On 20 July 2016 at 16:54, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Haravikk via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> On 20 Jul 2016, at 14:55, Tino Heth <2th at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 17.07.2016 um 18:31 schrieb Haravikk <swift-evolution at haravikk.me>:
>>>> I may move discussion of other collection types to its own section though, to make the core proposal as simple as possible, and leave it up to the core team whether to do that part.
>>> imho this is a good idea: Its increased power is a major argument for the proposal, but the schedule seems to be very tight already… and I guess the discussion about possible problems caused by variadic functions which can be called with an explicit collection could be a real distraction, whereas the basic idea is so clear that there shouldn't be any valid reasons to not accept it.
>> I've created a new pull request for this, you can view the updated file here:
>> Hopefully it's still clear; I know I have a nasty tendency to be overly verbose with wording and stuff, though the first example should keep the meat of the proposal straightforward =)
> I’m sorry I’m late to this thread, but I’m personally strongly opposed to this. The problem being solved here is so minor that I don’t see a reason to make a change. Further, the proposed syntax is so heavy weight that it will adversely affect readability of the API.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution