Another usecase would be for the type aliases: typealias PureFunc = pure (Some)->Else
Or pure typealias PureFunc = (Some)->Else I'm not sure where the keyword should stand On Feb 17, 2017, 12:03 PM -0500, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <[email protected]>, wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2017, at 10:55 AM, David Sweeris <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2017, at 08:49, Matthew Johnson <[email protected] > > (mailto:[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. > > > > Are there any parameterized attributes other than "@inline(always|never)”? > > I am not sure, but there has been discussion of introducing them. For > example, regardless of what syntax we choose for indicating a public enum is > closed it will need to have an optional parameter indicating the first > version of the library in which it was closed (which can be omitted if it was > closed the first time it appeared). One option for indicating this is to use > an attribute. > > > > > And if we did do this we should allow the parens to be omitted when there > > > is only one attribute. > > Agreed. > > > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > 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
