> On Jun 21, 2016, at 15:26, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Resnick via swift-evolution
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I also disagree for the same reasons that Gwynne and Brent mentioned: I find
> '\(...)' easy to read, fine to type, and consistent with other string
> escaping syntax.
>
> Those are persuasive arguments. Consistency with other string escaping syntax
> is a huge plus. Moreover, now that I think about it, \r or \n isn't really a
> bother to type. The \( combination takes a little getting used to, but it's
> not absurdly terrible. I suppose we could consider \{} or even \[] instead of
> \() to alleviate the reach.
Gwynne and Brent indeed hit on the logic for the original design: backslash is
already an escape character in strings. The parentheses () over another kind of
delimiter were originally to match calls (string interpolation once generated
direct calls to String initializers), but even without that it’s still
something that’s used with expressions, while curly braces {} are used for
general code blocks and square brackets [] are used with collections.
I’m strongly in favor of keeping things the way they are, both because I like
it a fair bit and because it’d be another source-breaking change that would be
very hard to migrate.
Jordan
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
