On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jérémie Girault <jeremie.gira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - Void as arguments is pretty common when using generics, that’s a core > point of this proposal. An maybe that’s why we misunderstood ourselves > (around 0110 / 0066). This proposal addresses arguments. > - maybe it should be revised around this ? Simple example : > > `typealias Callback<T> = (T) -> Void` -> `Callback<Void>` will give > `(Void) => Void`. > > It was acceptable before swift4 but no more. However nobody cares about > this `Void` argument and actually we know it’s value. So why let the > developer type it ? > Ah, I see. The purpose of SE-0029...SE-0110 was to make it possible to distinguish an argument list `(Void)` from an argument list `()`. This does cause some verbosity where previously users relied on implicit tuple splatting. Ideally, we would bring back some syntactic sugar to make this more ergonomic. But, whether or not the spelling is made more user-friendly, the point here is that _everybody_ should care about this `Void` argument. My point here is that `Void` should be “striped” by “reducing” argument > list signatures. > > — > very short reply expected - vsre.info > Jérémie Girault > > On 12 juin 2017 at 19:15:18, John McCall (rjmcc...@apple.com) wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:48 AM, Jérémie Girault via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Hi here, > > As I tested swift4 in xcode9b1 I noticed a lot of regressions about tuples > usage. > > After documenting myself about the changes which happened, I thought that > they could be improved. Instead of fighting these propositions (which make > sense), I wanted create a few proposal which would improve these recent > changes with a few simple rules. > > My propositions are based on the recent decisions and in the continuation > of SE-0110. The first one is about Void. > Void is historically defined as the type of the empty tuple. The reason of > this is that arguments were initially considered as tuple. > > > The dominant consideration here was always return types, not parameters. > I'm not sure there was ever much point in writing Void in a parameter list, > but whatever reasons there were surely vanished with SE-0066. > > Note that 'void' in C was originally exclusively a return type. ANSI gave > it a new purpose it with void*, but the meaning is totally unrelated. > > John. > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
