[swift-evolution] Proposal: Always flatten the single element tuple

[Susan Cheng]

`((Int, Int)) -> Void` will be same type as `(Int, Int) -> Void`

2017-06-07 18:09 GMT+08:00 Adrian Zubarev <adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com>:

> Keep in mind there is also SE–0111 cometary which promises sugar for
> parameter labels for closures:
>
> // **
> let foo(tuple:): ((Int, Int)) -> Void
>
> // Sugar for **
> let foo: (tuple: (Int, Int)) -> Void
>
> What will happen if you’d always flatten here?
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 7. Juni 2017 um 12:03:08, Adrian Zubarev (adrian.zubarev at devandartist.
> com) schrieb:
>
> Well please no:
>
> let fn2: ((Int, Int)) -> Void = { lhs, rhs in }
>
> Instead use destructuring sugar pitched by Chris Lattner on the other
> thread:
>
> let fn2: ((Int, Int)) -> Void = { ((lhs, rhs)) in }
>
> That’s a correct error:
>
> let fn3: (Int, Int) -> Void = { _ in }
>
> This should be allowed, because we might want to work with the whole tuple
> and not a desctructured elements only:
>
> let fn4: ((Int, Int)) -> Void = { tuple in }
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170607/1a06c2af/attachment.html>