> On Feb 17, 2017, at 10:46 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2017, at 08:21, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > >> I haven’t yet read all the feedback in this topic but I’d like to throw some >> bikeshedding of mine into the room. :) >> >> How about this? >> >> Version 1: func(pure) … >> Version 2: func label(…) ~> ReturnType > Version 2 is going to upset those who use "~>" as an operator. > > As the # of possible attributes grows, having an obvious grouping mechanism > for them, like version 1, might be worthwhile simply to help make the list > clearer. What about allowing "@(list, of, attributes)" instead of "@list, > @of, @attributes”?
That would be a little bit awkward for attributes that are parameterized. And if we did do this we should allow the parens to be omitted when there is only one attribute. > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
