I wouldn’t go as far as to require it, but having it for optional use “for symmetry" seems fine to me.
> On Jul 11, 2016, at 21:03, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Currently, "infix" is not required/allowed on an operator function > definition, but "prefix" and "postfix" are: > > prefix operator ^^ {} // valid > postfix operator ^^ {} // valid > infix operator ^^ {} // valid > > prefix func ^^(operand: Int) {} // valid > postfix func ^^(operand: Int) {} // valid > infix func ^^(lhs: Int, rhs: Int) {} // error: 'infix' modifier is not > required or allowed on func declarations > func ^^(lhs: Int, rhs: Int) {} // valid > > It seems like this was removed because it can be inferred from the number of > arguments > (https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/3ad9c58c18f0331444114e2eae3e772e702c326f > > <https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/3ad9c58c18f0331444114e2eae3e772e702c326f>). > But IMO the inconsistency from other operator function decls/defs is > jarring. > > How does everyone feel about reinstating the "infix" modifier on functoins? > (It was removed before the open-source release and the advent of > swift-evolution, so I thought it'd be worth a public review.) > > Jacob > _______________________________________________ > 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
