@Howard
I was thinking the same about the constraint.
Does that mean that Never should be a subtype of Error (maybe it is already) ?
Else you couldn't say throws(Never) or FSTore<Never>
@Howard
I'm not sure about <>, it should stay reserved for generics, IMHO.
Pierre
> Le 13 janv. 2017 à 01:11, Howard Lovatt via swift-users
> <swift-users@swift.org> a écrit :
>
> @Anton, Yes that would work and we would get typed throws, which I like. As
> an aside, I think E would have to be constrained to be an Error, `<E:
> Error>`, and maybe `throws<E>` reads better because you are used to types in
> angle brackets.
>
> -- Howard.
>
>> On 13 January 2017 at 08:32, Anton Zhilin <antonyzhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The best way to deal with such situations should be typed throws. Then
>> rethrows should be removed and replaced with generics in throws clause. E ==
>> Never ⇔ function does not throw.
>>
>> struct FStore<E> {
>> let f: () throws(E) -> Void
>> init(_ f: @escaping () throws(E) -> Void) { self.f = f }
>> func call() throws(E) { try f() }
>> }
>>
>> let store = FStore<Never>({ print("Hello") })
>> store.call()
>> [Phase2]
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-users mailing list
> swift-users@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
