<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2016-07-04 1:18 GMT+03:00 Vladimir.S <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:svabox@gmail.com" target="_blank">svabox@gmail.com</a>></span>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Right, there is some impact on existing code that was omitted<br>
in the proposal. And it wasn't considered during review. Awkward.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Probably because some(many?) people (like me) did not understand that this proposal is much bigger than "Just require parentheses on function types", because IMHO the major idea of this proposal was disallow `Int->Int` syntax but not to disallow void parameter for zero parameter functions.<br>
<br>
I hope community will provide opinions regarding this issue and about the decision regarding the void parameter to argument-less functions, and if that decision is really expected and was clearly mentioned in the proposal.<br>
<br>
Personally I think we need to implement the proposal in all areas except this one and raise new proposal to make all things clear regarding argument-less functions.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Formally, we should. But I wonder how often the feature being removed was used. I personally don't feel like it's that important. As Chris suggested, it may be enough to clarify it in SE-0066.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
We could add implicit convertion<br>
() -> T to (U) -> T<br>
I feel that is one constructive way out.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Could you clarify the suggestion with some details?<br>
Do you suggest, that we can pass ()->T where (U)->T is required?</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Yes. By the way, Austin Zheng seems to disagree with this.</div></div>