> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:51 AM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >>> Since we also lack the more obvious static "Callable" protocol idea to give >>> even well-typed call syntax to user-defined types, this also seems like >>> it'd be easily abused for that purpose too. >> >> Similarly, I’d love for you to elaborate on how the potential for abuse of >> this feature is different than anything else in Swift (e.g. operator >> overloading). Potential for abuse hasn’t been a particularly guiding force >> in the design on Swift, and for good reasons. >> >> I also don’t understand what you mean by a static Callable protocol. I >> specifically address what I think you might mean in the “alternatives” part >> of the proposal, did you read that? > > People have reasonably asked for the ability to make their own function-like > types in the past, such that "myvalue(...)" behaves like sugar for > "myvalue.call(...)" or something like that. In most cases, they still want to > have type system control over what arguments and results their call operation > produces. They don't really get that with this proposal; they lose all > control over the arity and argument types.
As I mentioned, this is directly addressed in the writeup. Here’s the link: https://gist.github.com/lattner/a6257f425f55fe39fd6ac7a2354d693d#staticly-checking-for-exact-signatures <https://gist.github.com/lattner/a6257f425f55fe39fd6ac7a2354d693d#staticly-checking-for-exact-signatures> -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
