> On Feb 22, 2017, at 12:30 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote: > > >> On Feb 22, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> I like this idea. I think you made the right choice of syntax given the >> alternatives considered. To me `foo(_)` and `foo(:)` equally imply presence >> of an argument. The former looks like an anonymous (unnamed) argument and >> the latter includes the colon which only follows an argument. Between the >> two `foo(:)` is the better choice because it doesn’t look like a pattern as >> has been pointed out. >> >> I’m going to do a little brainstorming to try and come up with something >> that works and doesn’t imply an argument at all but suspect I’ll come up >> empty handed. > > What about “foo(Void)”? It might be fairly easily confused with “foo(:Void)”, > but in practice, how likely is it for someone to declare both `foo()` and > `foo(_: Void)`?
I almost threw out `foo(Void)` and `foo(Never)` as ideas. There is at least one problem with these. We will hopefully eventually get rid of the need to say `.self` in expressions like `Int.self`. If we are able to do that then `foo(Void)` and `foo(Never)` are syntactically valid function calls. > > - Dave Sweeris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
