<div dir="ltr">This is clean, but given knowledge of foo(bar:) syntax, its discoverability is low. Conversely, given knowledge of `foo()`, the discoverability of foo(bar:) would be low compared to `foo(bar:)`.<div><br></div><div>If backticks were the <b>only</b> option, and also worked as `foo(bar:)`, the consistency would be appealing. Although then if you had a function name which needed backticks, `foo`(bar:) would have to continue working, I suppose, so only allowing `foo(bar:)` isn't feasible.</div><div><br></div><div>I imagine this would make for some very nice code completion, though — `foo(#^...^# could suggest the names of all the foo variants.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Ben Rimmington <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:me@benrimmington.com" target="_blank">me@benrimmington.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
> On 23 Feb 2017, at 14:23, Xiaodi Wu wrote:<br>
><br>
> What happens when you need the backticks for the function name itself? We can't nest them.<br>
<br>
</span>func `class`() {}<br>
<br>
`class`() // Function call.<br>
<br>
`class()` // Function reference.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- Ben<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>