d treat every parameter of type Void
> as having an implied default value of Void? That would be an interesting
> idea.
>
> What is the goal of such changes? Is it to allow you to write `foo()`
>> instead of `foo(())` for a function `foo` of type `(T) -> Void`?
>>
>&
of type Void
> as having an implied default value of Void? That would be an interesting
> idea.
>
> What is the goal of such changes? Is it to allow you to write `foo()`
>> instead of `foo(())` for a function `foo` of type `(T) -> Void`?
>>
>> If so, then I think
type
Void as having an implied default value of Void? That would be an
interesting idea.
>>>
>>> What is the goal of such changes? Is it to allow you to write `foo()`
instead of `foo(())` for a function `foo` of type `(T) -> Void`?
>>>
>>> If so, then I think what
to require such a spelling. I think you're starting from the premise
> that this is unintended or undesirable, when in fact it is deliberate and
> approved.
>
> It is also, unless I'm mistaken, not the issue that was raised initially
> with respect to SE-0110, which had to
entation level) but it’s the same result for the developper.
My point here is that `Void` should be “striped” by “reducing” argument
> list signatures.
>
> —
> very short reply expected - vsre.info
> Jérémie Girault
>
> On 12 juin 2017 at 19:15:18, John McCall (rjmcc...@apple.co
s for swift3 tuples-arguments of cardinality zero (Void) in swift
>>>> 4 (this proposition)
>>>> - Rules for swift3 tuples-arguments of cardinality one in swift 4
>>>> (proposition to be done)
>>>> - Rules for swift3 tuples-arguments of cardinality >
.
—
very short reply expected - vsre.info
Jérémie Girault
On 12 juin 2017 at 19:15:18, John McCall (rjmcc...@apple.com) wrote:
On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:48 AM, Jérémie Girault via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Hi here,
As I tested swift4 in xcode9b1 I noticed a lot of re
y short reply expected - vsre.info
>>> Jérémie Girault
>>>
>>> On 12 juin 2017 at 19:25:31, Xiaodi Wu (xiaodi...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I think this proposal appears to be mistaken as to this
>>> key premise: Void was never (IIUC) me
ions needed during migration? From
> here, I can only see that the reason any code needs modification is the
> complete removal of implicit tuple splatting. Nothing has changed about
> Void being a synonym for the empty tuple; even if you rename Void,
> functions will still return () by some
gt; And contrary to what some people might think, this is not an
>>>> “edge-case”. Most useful monads modelled with generics have good reasons to
>>>> use Void:
>>>>
>>>> *The Result monad:* Result represents the result of an
>>>> operation wi
at this falls
>> into the ship-has-sailed category of out-of-scope changes.
>>
>> More generally, the recent spate of complaints about regressions to a
>> particular coding style have to do with loss of implicit tuple splatting,
>> the cure for which is a proper imple
tuple splatting,
> the cure for which is a proper implementation of tuple splatting, not
> poking holes into settled parts of the type system.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:15 John McCall via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
atting in some form, the migration you performed is inevitable.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:15 John McCall via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:48 AM, Jérémie Girault via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift
gt; wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:48 AM, Jérémie Girault via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Hi here,
>
> As I tested swift4 in xcode9b1 I noticed a lot of regressions about tuples
> usage.
>
> After documenting myself about the changes w
.
—
very short reply expected - vsre.info
Jérémie Girault
On 12 juin 2017 at 19:15:18, John McCall (rjmcc...@apple.com) wrote:
On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:48 AM, Jérémie Girault via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Hi here,
As I tested swift4 in xcode9b1 I noticed a lot of regre
in Swift 3, error in Swift 4
From what I read in your proposal, I assume that you want foo(fnA) to
compile in both.
But if so, don't you think foo(fnC) should also compile in both?
/Jens
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Jérémie Girault via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org>
reply expected - vsre.info
Jérémie Girault
On 12 juin 2017 at 13:21:24, Vladimir.S (sva...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 12.06.2017 11:48, Jérémie Girault via swift-evolution wrote:
> Hi here,
>
> As I tested swift4 in xcode9b1 I noticed a lot of regressions about
tuples usage.
>
> After docu
I think it’s interesting to discuss tuples, especially around 1-sized
tuples.
I also have an issue about 0-sized tuples and drafted a proposal here.
https://github.com/jeremiegirault/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/-flatten-void.md
I think by addressing empty, 1 and n-sized tuples issue
Hi here,
As I tested swift4 in xcode9b1 I noticed a lot of regressions about tuples
usage.
After documenting myself about the changes which happened, I thought that
they could be improved. Instead of fighting these propositions (which make
sense), I wanted create a few proposal which would improv
19 matches
Mail list logo
