There shouldn't be a need for a third arrow with regard to purity. Impure encompasses pure in that there is simply no guarantee of purity with an impure function. You should be able to use a pure function in place of an impure function without any issue whatsoever.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > My suggestion is that -> would be the conditional arrow that can be both > *pure* or *impure*. That would make @pure func foo(_ f: @pure (Int) -> > Int) -> Int equivalent to func foo(_ f: (Int) ~> Int) -> Int. Plus > depending on the implementation the compiler *might* be able to help and > tell you that foo could use ~> instead. > > > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 17. Februar 2017 um 19:25:41, Anton Zhilin (antonyzhi...@gmail.com) > schrieb: > > Just let > > @pure func foo(_ f: (Int) -> Int) -> Int > > be the same as those two combined: > > @pure func foo(_ f: @pure (Int) -> Int) -> Int > func foo(_ f: (Int) -> Int) -> Int > > No need for anything like “re-pure” or ≃>. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
