I'm really not sold about the ~> operator, as it would be easy to miss. Swift is known and loved for the expressiveness of the language, using that operator doesn't help with that.
On another hand, I agree that this is the sexiest, less intrusive solution. On 17 févr. 2017 13:36 -0500, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <[email protected]>, wrote: > My suggestion is that -> would be the conditional arrow that can be both pure > or impure. That would make @pure func foo(_ f: @pure (Int) -> Int) -> Int > equivalent to func foo(_ f: (Int) ~> Int) -> Int. Plus depending on the > implementation the compiler might be able to help and tell you that foo could > use ~> instead. > > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 17. Februar 2017 um 19:25:41, Anton Zhilin ([email protected]) > schrieb: > > Just let > > > > @pure func foo(_ f: (Int) -> Int) -> Int > > > > be the same as those two combined: > > > > @pure func foo(_ f: @pure (Int) -> Int) -> Int > > func foo(_ f: (Int) -> Int) -> Int > > > > No need for anything like “re-pure” or ≃>. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
