My answer to `inout` is to promote it to a full-fledged "storage class" (in C terminology) and allow normal variables to be `inout`. This would immediately solve the problems with `inout` being a magical thing in functions, as well as a convenient way of storing "references" (in C++ terminology) to potentially huge inout expressions, not to mention returning an inout from a function, effectively spreading the getter-setter awesomeness to everything else besides properties and subscripts.
As for variadic parameters: currently they are what I call a "dead end feature", meaning that there is no way to propagate them further and abstract them away, because you can't "unpack" a sequence into a variadic parameter (the way you can in Python with the prefix `*`), so my answer to that would also be to promote it to its own Sequence protocol conforming compiler-magic structure, which would also become part of the type system and alleviate the problem. > On Jun 9, 2017, at 11:07 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Gor Gyolchanyan via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >>> >>> So I wonder if any of you have had any thoughts about what Swift's >>> parentheses-related future (or evolutionary baggage) will be? >>> >> >> I really wish swift used the concept of tuples **exclusively** for all >> purposes that involve parentheses, as well as dividing tuples into two >> categories: >> - Bare tuples, which do not have labels. >> - Rich tuples, which do. >> As a consequence, here's a list of statements that would become true: >> - All functions take exactly one parameter, which is a tuple. > > That’s what we used to do. It caused problems with other language features > (“inout" and “variadic" parameters were the two big ones, IIRC). > > - Dave Sweeris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
