If I recall correctly there was a thread with a similar idea which instead
would create a new operator for mutation or a new way of method invocation,
such that mutating methods would be called with &. or something similar. e.g.
foo&.add(5)
I think the consensus was that that was not a particularly familiar syntax and
it would add a decent amount of noise.
There may have also been some issues with the grammar, I can't recall.
> On Apr 21, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Krishna Kumar via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Hey
>
> I think adding “&” to methods will reduce the readability of the code. Also,
> keyword “mutating” makes it super clear and readable that my method is
> mutating the values.
>
> 1. mutating func add(value: Double){…}
>
> 2. func add&(value: Double){…}
>
> I think it’s easy to skip the information encoded into the 2nd function which
> is this function is mutating a value as compared to 1st. When I read 1st
> function I start reading with keyword “mutating” making its intentions clear
> to me.
>
> Also, it might become a symbol nightmare with following type signature of a
> function-
>
> func nightmare&(title: String?) -> String? -> String?{…}
>
> I can see the advantage of using “&” when calling a function. It makes clear
> at the call site that this method is mutating but still I don’t find
> eliminating “mutating” a good step for the reasons mentioned above.
>
> Maybe we can think of some better solution.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Krishna
>
>> On Apr 21, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Daniel Steinberg via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
