On 17.02.2017 20:18, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution wrote:
If we do go with the => means pure one option for closures without a
signature would be something like this: {= $0.pureMethod() }
I feel this will be more clear: {=> in $0.pureMethod() }
i.e. "in" is required to highlight that this is a "modifier" not the
closure body.
in case you have parameters: {=> x,y in $0.pureMethod(x,y) }
This keeps the closure concise and uses = to indicate purity. The fact
that it looks a little bit like assignment is interesting since a pure
function always has to have a return value.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 17, 2017, at 10:59 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
How do you suggest a closure indicate its purity? Something like this?
{ pure in $0.property }
On Feb 17, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Florent Vilmart <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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] <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. 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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
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
