<div dir="ltr">Thanks for the feedback Chris! I am happy with this proposal given the discussion here. <div><br></div><div>- Mish</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Andrew Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cacoyi@gmail.com" target="_blank">cacoyi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I initially had similar concerns to Mishal, but I worked my way through it and found I was wrong.<div><br></div><div>In current Swift you can have a function:</div><span class=""><div>A -> B -> C</div><div><br></div></span><div>Adding brackets for clarity, that is equivalent to this (current Swift):</div><span class=""><div>A -> (B -> C)</div><div><br></div></span><div>After this proposal this will become:</div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">(A) -> ((B) -> C)</span></font><br><br>Which can also be expressed (with proposal):</div><div><span class=""><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">(A) -> (B) -> C</span></font><br><br></span>I don't think this is making it harder to do what you want. I think that's what Chris meant. <font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Please correct me if I'm wrong Chris :)</span></font></div><div><br></div><div>By my interpretation it is just removing the syntactic ambiguity between:</div><div> * a single argument that is a tuple of type: (A, B, C)</div><div> * multiple arguments: A, B, C</div><div><br></div><div> This is a small change with a big win.</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div><br>On Wednesday, 27 April 2016, Ryan Lovelett via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>SE-0066 is a very narrow proposal - it only affects syntax, not semantics. The type system semantics that you seem interested in are unlikely to happen regardless of the syntax changes SE-0066 imply, and SE-0066 doesn’t have anything to do with that.<br></div>
</div>
</blockquote><div> <br></div>
<div>It is most disappointing to read these sorts of statements.<br></div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>One of the things that I have noticed over the last year or so of working with Swift is a trend in the community of libriaries being written for Swift towards some of these "system semantics" (i.e., functional paradigms) like applicatives and such.<br></div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>Granted I may have a selection bias towards these sorts of libraries. That is, I tried one library that did some of this stuff so then I tried more. Eventually stumbling into an enclave of functional practioners of Swift. I'm willing to admit that I have not conducted a scientific survey.<br></div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>But from my vantage we have a minority of Swift users participating in these evolution discussions. Albeit, judging from the e-mail volume, an extremely _vocal_ minority. I worry that these things become an echo chamber and those not involved will look at some of the "writing on the wall" and think differently about Swift going forward. Indeed for those people they may look at Swift 3 and say "I did not leave Swift; Swift left me."<br></div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>What is more is that those not participating in these discussions now may leave them with no recourse to be heard. Because apparently Swift 3 is a do-or-die release (or as the author of this evolution put it: "It is
now or never."). I wonder what portion of Swift developers, the ones who want to see Swift be their go-to language for the forseable future, understand the implications or justifications for a Swift 3 release.<br></div>
<div> </div>
<div>All that having been said, I get it, decisions are made by those who show up. Roger that. I also understand and agree with the desire to make Swift its own language. To show restraint at the urge to turn the language into a hodge podge of the "greatest hits" of language paradigms. I sincerely appreciate the difficulty of the task for the Swift core team.<br></div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>I realized at the end that I do not really have a point. Apparently I'm feeling philosphical this Wednesday morning.<br></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>