> 27 Nov. 2017 22:38 Mathew Huusko V via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > I tuned out the initial discussions of this proposal because there seemed to > be a lot of noise centered around implementation/maintainability. I'm curious > if the actual premise of the syntactic/sugar conversion has been > discussed/debated yet? i.e. making dynamic/stringly calls look like normal > calls is very clean, but it's also very misleading (by definition; they're > not normal/safe/checked calls) with a potential net reduction in ergonomics.
There is nothing that is inherently non-fallible with "normal" Swift calls. As far as the caller can tell, any function or method you call can fail. There is no difference here; the implementation of the "user-defined dynamic member lookup" object will determine if you have called it in a proper way or not, in the same way as "+" will determine if you have called it in a way that overflows or not. /Magnus _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
