<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Yes, except why would you need to define `((A, B)) -> C`?, If you need to pass a 2-element tuple into a function that takes two parameters - you can! If you want to pass two values into a function that *looks* like it takes a single 2-element tuple - you can! Seems to me that the difference between `((A, B)) -> C` and `(A, B) -> C` is virtually non-existent. But keep in mind that this only works for bare tuples (the ones that can't have labels). Non-closure functions DO have labels, which is part of their signature, so this is a different story.<div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 9, 2017, at 6:18 PM, Gwendal Roué <<a href="mailto:gwendal.roue@gmail.com" class="">gwendal.roue@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Le 9 juin 2017 à 17:12, Gor Gyolchanyan via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><font color="#00afcd" class=""><br class=""></font>So I wonder if any of you have had any thoughts about what Swift's parentheses-related future (or evolutionary baggage) will be?<br class=""><font color="#00afcd" class=""><br class=""></font></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">I really wish swift used the concept of tuples **exclusively** for all purposes that involve parentheses, as well as dividing tuples into two categories:</div><div class="">- Bare tuples, which do not have labels.</div><div class="">- Rich tuples, which do.</div><div class="">As a consequence, here's a list of statements that would become true:</div><div class="">- All functions take exactly one parameter, which is a tuple.</div><div class="">- All closures (a.k.a. function pointers) take exactly one parameter, which is a bare tuple.</div><div class="">- All functions return exactly one parameter, which is a tuple.</div><div class="">- Pattern matching is done on a single bare tuple using a single bare tuple pattern.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">The currently ongoing proposal to make a single-element tuple auto-flatten would work extremely well with this idea, by making all these changes completely backward-compatible.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">If I have well understood, Swift has evolved away from this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If what you describe were true, added to the fact that there is no such thing as a one-element tuple in the language, then (A,B) -> C and ((A, B)) -> C could not be distinguished, for the simple reason that ((A, B)) -> C could not be defined.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For ((A, B)) -> C to be defined, we'd need a function that takes exactly one parameter, which is a tuple (your idea), whose single element is a tuple (oops, there is no single-valued tuples).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">No opinion here, just they way I have understood recent Swift history.</div><div class="">Gwendal</div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>