[swift-evolution] History and future of Swift's parentheses

T.J. Usiyan griotspeak at gmail.com
Sat Jun 10 09:56:06 CDT 2017

I vote language complexity in the form of hygienic macros.

/me slinks away

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:25 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> > On Jun 9, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Gor Gyolchanyan via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> > My answer to `inout` is to promote it to a full-fledged "storage class"
> (in C terminology) and allow normal variables to be `inout`.
> > This would immediately solve the problems with `inout` being a magical
> thing in functions, as well as a convenient way of storing "references" (in
> C++ terminology) to potentially huge inout expressions, not to mention
> returning an inout from a function, effectively spreading the getter-setter
> awesomeness to everything else besides properties and subscripts.
> C++ implements this idea by being utterly unsafe; Rust implements it by
> introducing entire new dimensions of language complexity.  Are you
> proposing one of these in particular, or do you have your own concept?
> John.
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> 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/20170610/826f51da/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list