> On 05 May 2016, at 19:38, Joe Groff via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> On May 5, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 5, 2016, at 10:03, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> On May 5, 2016, at 8:59 AM, Alex Hoppen via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>> Say you have the function `foo() -> Int`. Then `foo()` calls `foo` and >>>> returns its return value of type `Int` – not a reference to the function >>>> of type `Void -> Int`. >>> >>> Right. >>> >>> That said, what is wrong with just “foo”? >> >> As pointed out in the original post, that can refer to both ‘foo()’ and >> ‘foo(bar:)’ today. > > We could change that, so that to refer to `foo(bar:)` you must use the full > compound name. > > -Joe
That would be my second favourite option if there is no support for `foo(_)`, which there doesn’t seem to be. If there is support for letting `foo` refer to the zero-parameter function, I will change the proposal. – Alex _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
