On 28.06.2016 19:49, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution wrote:
This makes sense. If nobody objects I'll prepare a proposal today.
Austin, I'd ask to review this related(about function/closure type) thread
in mailing list before preparing the proposal: "[Proposal] Disallow
implicit conversion between function/closure with a list of parameters and
with tuple parameter. Remove function type inconsistency."
I mean probably you'll want to form a more generic proposal to improve/make
less surprising Swift's function types and add consistency in this area.
I'd be happy if you'll add ideas from the thread mentioned above to your
proposal.
By the way, on the topic of design topics: is there any core team
support for removing associated type inference? I have a proposal there
that I would like to move into the formal review stage at some point.
Best, Austin
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Jun 27, 2016, at 10:40 PM, Charlie Monroe
<[email protected]> wrote:
Oh, I see. The issue is then the following:
let x = f x(1, 2) // Error: Missing argument labels 'a:b:' in call
let y: (Int, Int) -> () = f f(1, 2) // OK
Which requires you to write x(a: 1, b: 2). I must admit, however,
that I always liked this behavior…
Right, that’s the issue. The idea behind this is that it’s a
simplification to the type system to eliminate argument labels from
types, so we can eliminate some extra subtyping relationships (e.g.,
between function types with labels and ones without labels).
Essentially, argument labels become part of the names of declarations
(only!), which is consistent with our view that the names of
functions/methods/initializers include all of the argument names.
- Doug
On Jun 28, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Austin Zheng <[email protected]>
wrote:
I think the point is to get rid of the argument labels. 'x' should
be typed simply (Int, Int) -> ().
That being said, right now the argument labels in the type don't
seem to actually affect anything, so like Chris I'm not sure what
the counter-proposal is.
(cc. Doug)
Best, Austin
On Jun 27, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Charlie Monroe
<[email protected]> wrote:
This came from a short list of topics Doug provided me, but
the basic issue is that:
func f(a : Int, b : Int) { let x = f // x has type (a: Int,
b: Int) -> () }
I’m not exactly sure what the counterproposal is.
My guess is to require let x = f(a:,b:) (specifying arguments)?
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing
list [email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
