[swift-evolution] Pitch: Compound name `foo(:)` for nullary functions

[Richard Wei]

In addition, I think # and @ are very confusing since they are not one of the existing symbols in function name syntax.

-Richard

> On Feb 22, 2017, at 15:25, Richard Wei <rxrwei at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I prefer the `foo(_)` option and keeping the one-colon-per-arg rule.
> 
> Intuition:
> Underscore means no label. Colon means one argument.
> foo(_:) – one arg with no label
> foo(_) – no arg with no label
> 
> -Richard
> 
>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 14:27, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Just to throw out some other options: foo(#) and foo(@). 
>> 
>> (And you thought we'd gotten rid of # argument labels! 😉)
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:48 AM David Sweeris <davesweeris at mac.com <mailto:davesweeris at mac.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Feb 22, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com <mailto:matthew at anandabits.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Feb 22, 2017, at 12:30 PM, David Sweeris <davesweeris at mac.com <mailto:davesweeris at mac.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I like this idea.  I think you made the right choice of syntax given the alternatives considered.  To me `foo(_)` and `foo(:)` equally imply presence of an argument.  The former looks like an anonymous (unnamed) argument and the latter includes the colon which only follows an argument.  Between the two `foo(:)` is the better choice because it doesn’t look like a pattern as has been pointed out.
>> >>>
>> >>> I’m going to do a little brainstorming to try and come up with something that works and doesn’t imply an argument at all but suspect I’ll come up empty handed.
>> >>
>> >> What about “foo(Void)”? It might be fairly easily confused with “foo(:Void)”, but in practice, how likely is it for someone to declare both `foo()` and `foo(_: Void)`?
>> >
>> > I almost threw out `foo(Void)` and `foo(Never)` as ideas.  There is at least one problem with these.  We will hopefully eventually get rid of the need to say `.self` in expressions like `Int.self`.  If we are able to do that then `foo(Void)` and `foo(Never)` are syntactically valid function calls.
>> 
>> Oh, good point! Hrmm… “foo(#null)”/“foo(#nullary)"? I can’t imagine either of those would ever be valid function calls, and they get the point across (the later more than the former, but it’s more to type). I don’t like that syntax for the name of “shortest” version of the function isn’t shorter than the syntax of the name for other versions of the function, though.
>> 
>> - Dave Sweeris
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170222/0004a129/attachment.html>