> On Feb 17, 2017, at 08:49, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com> wrote: > > >> 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> 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.
Are there any parameterized attributes other than "@inline(always|never)"? > And if we did do this we should allow the parens to be omitted when there is > only one attribute. Agreed. - Dave Sweeris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
