Yet another inconsistency in this area (for people who care about them)
While the 'while {}' does not support trailing closures, the 'repeat {} while'
does support them. So, will the folks against supporting them in 'guard' ask
for a change to drop the support in the 'repeat {} while'?
Dany
>
+1. I feel this fits well with Swift, and the current inconsistency with other
statements warrants the change.
> On Mar 31, 2016, at 8:27 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of SE-0056 "Allow trailing closures in `guard` conditions" begins
> On 4 Apr 2016, at 18:18, Haravikk wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4 Apr 2016, at 15:49, Jeremy Pereira
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Haravikk via swift-evolution
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Although I use trailing closures a lot less now, I think I’m a +1 anyway
>>> for consistency’s sake.
>>>
>
> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1. I like the rule of “don’t make me think”. If I write a piece of code that
seems correct to me, why would the compiler “intentionally” stop me from
accepting it? Just smooth out this rough edge and remove one scenario in which
a compiler error stops
> On Mar 31, 2016, at 8:27 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of SE-0056 "Allow trailing closures in `guard` conditions" begins
> now and runs through April 5, 2016. The proposal is available here:
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evol
> Am 05.04.2016 um 01:52 schrieb Dany St-Amant via swift-evolution
> :.
>
> I am with you here, Swift is Swift, C is C, Swift should not be hampered by
> keeping the syntax identical to C. But, it seems that most prefer to type
> less, so we should be really careful with proposing new keywords
> Le 4 avr. 2016 à 10:19, Patrick Gili a écrit :
>
> If I understand you correctly, you think adding keywords represents an
> inconsistency.
I didn't write that, maybe I should have put my reply between your two
paragraphs. Adding keywords such as 'then' and 'do' could add some consistency,
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Haravikk via swift-evolution
wrote:
>
>> On 4 Apr 2016, at 15:49, Jeremy Pereira
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Haravikk via swift-evolution
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Although I use trailing closures a lot less now, I think I’m a +1 anyway
>>> for consiste
> On 4 Apr 2016, at 15:49, Jeremy Pereira
> wrote:
>
>> On 3 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Haravikk via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>
>> Although I use trailing closures a lot less now, I think I’m a +1 anyway for
>> consistency’s sake.
>>
>> I actually really like the idea of having trailing keyword
> Am 04.04.2016 um 16:49 schrieb Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution
> :
>
>
>> On 3 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Haravikk via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>
>> Although I use trailing closures a lot less now, I think I’m a +1 anyway for
>> consistency’s sake.
>>
>> I actually really like the idea of
> On 3 Apr 2016, at 17:20, Haravikk via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Although I use trailing closures a lot less now, I think I’m a +1 anyway for
> consistency’s sake.
>
> I actually really like the idea of having trailing keywords in loops and if
> statements, these needn’t be required (exc
If I understand you correctly, you think adding keywords represents an
inconsistency. However, I think it would add considerable consistency and
utility to the Swift language. Yes, it would make it inconsistent with the
generations of C-like languages that have come before it. However, I think
One idea related to this `for...do` syntax--maybe this will satisfy
some objections listed in the proposal:
Currently, Swift has optional semicolons. In the same spirit, suppose
control statements have optional colons, like this: `for eachValue in
theValues: { code }`. All current syntax continues
Like others, I'm -1 on this due to added inconsistency between the guard and
other control flow statements.
R+
Sent from my iPhone
> On 01 Apr 2016, at 05:27, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of SE-0056 "Allow trailing closures in `guard`
> Le 2 avr. 2016 à 15:39, Patrick Gili via swift-evolution
> a écrit :
>
>> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> I think there is a lot of value to allowing trailing closures in the guard
> condition clause. However, not at the cost of inconsistency. We have reviewed
> many proposals ov
Although I use trailing closures a lot less now, I think I’m a +1 anyway for
consistency’s sake.
I actually really like the idea of having trailing keywords in loops and if
statements, these needn’t be required (except where a trailing closure is used)
but for example it means I could do a full
Interesting idea to put keywords in the other statements so that they can
also use trailing closures!
On Sunday, 3 April 2016, Ilya Belenkiy via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>- What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>
> +1. I stumble on this quite often.
>
>
>-
> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1. I stumble on this quite often.
> Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to
> Swift?
yes
> Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
yes
> How much effort did you put into your review? A glance,
> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
I think there is a lot of value to allowing trailing closures in the guard
condition clause. However, not at the cost of inconsistency. We have reviewed
many proposals over the last month that addressed consistency issues in the
Swift language, and if I
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:27 PM Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of SE-0056 "Allow trailing closures in `guard` conditions"
> begins now and runs through April 5, 2016. The proposal is available here:
>
>
> https://githu
+1 with the same evaluation as Sebastian Hagedorn
On Friday, 1 April 2016, Sebastian Hagedorn via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>- What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>
> +1
>
>
>- Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
>change to S
I would prefer the conditional statements to treat trailing closures
consistently, rather than allow this minor but inconsistent convenience. I
don't think this needs changing. I read the proposal and followed the list
discussion.
___
swift-evolution mail
> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
-1 I admire the goal of making trailing closures usably in guard, but I do not
like the inconsistency between guard and if. I also never liked the
inconsistency with the else keyword in guard. Bother those reasons means that
I’m worried that this will i
+1 for this proposal. The resulting code would be clear enough and brings
benefit.
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
Hello Swift community,
The review of SE-0056 "Allow trailing closures in `guard` conditions" begins
now and runs through April 5, 2016. The proposal is available here:
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0056-trailing-closures-in-guard.md
Reviews are an important part
25 matches
Mail list logo
