> Closures cannot replace all uses of local functions. Local functions can
be recursive, and have a generic parameter list.
My response would be add these featurtes to closures, it will make closures
better.
In terms of recursion you can fiddle it:
struct RecursiveClosure<C> {
var c: C! = nil
}
func factorial(_ n: Int) -> Int {
var recursive = RecursiveClosure<(Int) -> Int>()
recursive.c = { x in
(x == 0) ? 1 : x * recursive.c(x - 1)
}
return recursive.c(n)
}
factorial(5) // 120
-- Howard.
On 27 October 2017 at 15:53, Slava Pestov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Howard Lovatt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> It would be easy to provide a fixit.
>
>
> That is still a source breaking change that requires migration, though.
>
> How often are they actually used? I rarely use them and all my use cases
> could be a closure instead.
>
> Also see Mike Kluev example; local functions are arguably worse than
> closures in all cases (provided that you can appropriately annotate the
> function type).
>
>
> Closures cannot replace all uses of local functions. Local functions can
> be recursive, and have a generic parameter list.
>
> Slava
>
>
> -- Howard.
>
> On 27 October 2017 at 12:26, Slava Pestov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Rather than expand local function syntax why not deprecate local
>> functions completely
>>
>>
>> I don’t think at this point such a drastic change to the language is
>> likely to happen.
>>
>> Slava
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
