<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>If I recall correctly there was a thread with a similar idea which instead would create a new operator for mutation or a new way of method invocation, such that mutating methods would be called with &. or something similar. e.g.</div><div><br></div><div>foo&.add(5)</div><div><br></div><div>I think the consensus was that that was not a particularly familiar syntax and it would add a decent amount of noise.</div><div><br></div><div>There may have also been some issues with the grammar, I can't recall.</div><div><br>On Apr 21, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Krishna Kumar via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8">Hey<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think adding “&” to methods will reduce the readability of the code. Also, keyword “mutating” makes it super clear and readable that my method is mutating the values.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. mutating func add(value: Double){…}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. func add&(value: Double){…}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think it’s easy to skip the information encoded into the 2nd function which is this function is mutating a value as compared to 1st. When I read 1st function I start reading with keyword “mutating” making its intentions clear to me.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also, it might become a symbol nightmare with following type signature of a function-</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">func nightmare&(title: String?) -> String? -> String?{…}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I can see the advantage of using “&” when calling a function. It makes clear at the call site that this method is mutating but still I don’t find eliminating “mutating” a good step for the reasons mentioned above.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Maybe we can think of some better solution.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Krishna</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 21, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Daniel Steinberg via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>swift-evolution mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>