<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><div><br></div><div><br>On 24 Jan 2017, at 00:52, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>We're not terribly principled about this right now with non-pattern declaration references. You can still reference an unapplied function by its base name alone without its labels, if it's unambiguous:</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div>func foo(x: Int, y: Int) {}</div><div><br class=""></div><div>let foo_x_y: (Int, Int) -> () = foo</div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>so it'd be consistent to continue to allow the same in pattern references.</div></div></blockquote><br><div>WRT ambiguity, do we loose the ability to pattern match on the naked case name when two cases share the same base name?</div><div><br></div><div>enum Foo {</div><div> case bar(a: Int)</div><div> case bar(b: String)</div><div>}</div><div><br></div><div>switch aFoo {</div><div> case .bar: // matches both cases</div><div> break</div><div>}</div></div></body></html>