<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On May 5, 2016, at 8:59 AM, Alex Hoppen via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Say you have the function `foo() -> Int`. Then `foo()` calls `foo` and returns its return value of type `Int` – not a reference to the function of type `Void -> Int`.<br>
<br>
Right.<br>
<br>
That said, what is wrong with just “foo”?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yeah, that'd work. The problems:<br>* Name collisions with variables (not a big deal, I think)</div><div>* "foo" looks substantially different than "bar(baz:)", but they mean the same thing</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I prefer something like #foo(), #bar(baz:). Clearly that particular choice can't work.</div><br><div>Kurt</div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">kurt@CircleW.org<br><a href="http://www.CircleW.org/kurt/" target="_blank">http://www.CircleW.org/kurt/</a><br></div>
</div></div>