+1 Chris Lattner mentioned that he wants to have a version of Rust's borrowing syntax eventually. With this change, if we get that, then we keep a very symmetric syntax: func foo(x: inout T) called as foo(inout myT) func foo(x: &T) called as foo(&myT) func foo(x: &mut T) called as foo(&mut myT)
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Tahoma Toelkes via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > +1 > > My sentiments exactly. As I was catching up on this thread, this was > almost exactly the syntax I was already considering mentioning when I > encountered Erica's reply. > > I don't know whether it will meet all requirements; however, from a > readability perspective in both declarations and function type signatures, > this syntax is the first of the suggestions that feels clear to me. > > -- Tahoma > > On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Ricardo Parada via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Erica Sadun <er...@ericasadun.com> wrote: > > What would the ramifications of the following be? Each addresses the > "confusable with labeling" issue but preserve the inout keyword. > > func foo(x: inout Int) > > ... > > > I think I like this one better than all the others. > I have not analyzed all the implications of having it there but it feels > right. > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > -- Trent Nadeau
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution