Ok, which differences? -Chris
> On Nov 11, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Nov 11, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Chris Lattner <sa...@nondot.org> wrote: >> >> On Nov 10, 2017, at 6:10 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> That discusses why you didn’t include it in the present proposal but I >>>>> think it’s reasonable to oppose adding a dynamic callable feature prior >>>>> to a more Swifty static callable. >>>> >>>> Why? One does not preclude the other. >>> >>> For exactly the reason Joe articulates. Some people will use what the >>> language offers to get the syntax they desire even if it sacrifices type >>> safety. If we’re going to have first-class callable types in Swift (I >>> think it’s a great idea) type safety for native code should be prioritized >>> over syntactic convenience for dynamic language interop. We can have both, >>> but the former should come first IMO. >> >> Hi Matthew, >> >> In point of fact, Swift already has the feature you are referring to. It >> just spells it with square brackets instead of parentheses. A simple change >> to the punctuation character has much less point than the proposal that I’m >> pitching. > > This is true if you squint, but I imagine a design for callable types would > include some > differences other than just punctuation. > >> >> -Chris >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
