<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">I didn't get an especially positive response to the proposal at the time, but it is still very much my preferred solution.</div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div>I'm convinced that the timing had a very huge impact on the reaction:<div class="">It was a very busy period, and I had a strong impression that people just wanted to limit the workload for the next milestone.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Imho "…"-variadics are a C-legacy that is a much worse fit for Swift than things that have been abandoned during times with higher motivation for such changes (I'm thinking of the for-loop and the increment/decrement operators).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For me, the change not only removes a strange syntax and type oddity, making Swift easier to understand — it also makes the language more powerful without additional cost.</div></body></html>