I prefer the `foo(_)` option and keeping the one-colon-per-arg rule. Intuition: Underscore means no label. Colon means one argument. foo(_:) – one arg with no label foo(_) – no arg with no label
-Richard > On Feb 22, 2017, at 14:27, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Just to throw out some other options: foo(#) and foo(@). > > (And you thought we'd gotten rid of # argument labels! 😉) > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:48 AM David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com > <mailto:daveswee...@mac.com>> wrote: > > > On Feb 22, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com > > <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>> wrote: > > > > > >> On Feb 22, 2017, at 12:30 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com > >> <mailto:daveswee...@mac.com>> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto: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. > > Oh, good point! Hrmm… “foo(#null)”/“foo(#nullary)"? I can’t imagine either of > those would ever be valid function calls, and they get the point across (the > later more than the former, but it’s more to type). I don’t like that syntax > for the name of “shortest” version of the function isn’t shorter than the > syntax of the name for other versions of the function, though. > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > 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
