> On Jul 3, 2016, at 11:50 PM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Overall, -1. > > I agree that labels should not affect the type, but imho the current status > (Swift 2.3 — I haven't checked Version 3) is fine, and the proposal doesn't > achieve what it says in the title: > For me, that is no question of types at all, but only of names: > > var a: (Int, z: Int) -> Void = t > var b: (y: Int, z: Int) -> Void = t > > a = b > > This works, because a and b are both of type (Int, Int) -> Void, and the > labels aren't significant.
The point of the behavior is to remove the subtyping relationships from the type system which make the above work, which is a very real change. > > So the proposal merely disallows labels in the declaration of function > variables, which I consider bad, because labels convey the meaning of > parameters. Why should something that is widely seen as a good feature of > functions be removed from function variables? As has been discussed exhaustively in this thread, Swift 3 function labels don't convey the meaning of parameters, they are almost always prepositional phrases that don't make sense apart from the primary function name they are attached to. > > If you share the opinion that labels are part of the name, the battleship > example no good argument against labels: > No one stops you from doing > > let minimum: (Int, Int) -> Int = max > Which is confusing as well. > > Best regards, > Tino > _______________________________________________ > 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
