You said "The ability to reference a function by only the first segment of its name is likewise legacy of the original model..." — how else could you refer to a nullary function? Even if labels were required for naming (>0)-ary functions, there's still ambiguity between a nullary function and a variable.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:54 PM Joe Groff <<a href="mailto:jgroff@apple.com">jgroff@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br class="gmail_msg">
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch <<a href="mailto:jtbandes@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">jtbandes@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Although there's no spelling for this... <a href="https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3550" rel="noreferrer" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3550</a><br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
IMO, the way to spell `foo` with no arguments is just `foo`. If we strictly required the labels for referring to n-ary functions, that would make it unambiguous…<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
-Joe<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
</blockquote></div>