Can I offer a more verbose alternative? How's `foo() -> _` for referring to a zero-parameter function? It's clearly not a function call, and it says you want to match regardless of what the return value is...
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Alex Hoppen via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution