We were discussing the topic yesterday with others and some suggested adding a
pure keyword, for improved readability, just before the function declaration:
Ex:
pure func(a:Some) -> Else {}
On Feb 17, 2017, 11:51 AM -0500, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
<[email protected]>, wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 10:46 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution
> > <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 08:21, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
> > <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I haven’t yet read all the feedback in this topic but I’d like to throw
> > > some bikeshedding of mine into the room. :)
> > >
> > >
> > > How about this?
> > >
> > > Version 1: func(pure) …
> > > Version 2: func label(…) ~> ReturnType
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Version 2 is going to upset those who use "~>" as an operator.
> >
> > As the # of possible attributes grows, having an obvious grouping mechanism
> > for them, like version 1, might be worthwhile simply to help make the list
> > clearer. What about allowing "@(list, of, attributes)" instead of "@list,
> > @of, @attributes”?
>
> That would be a little bit awkward for attributes that are parameterized. And
> if we did do this we should allow the parens to be omitted when there is only
> one attribute.
> >
> > - Dave Sweeris _______________________________________________
> > swift-evolution mailing list
> > [email protected] (mailto:[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
