> This sounds like a cosmetic proposal that doesn’t change semantics, so I
> don’t think it’s directly related to the change I’m proposing.
Well, you're the expert here, and I haven't looked at the compiler source at
all — but as I understand your first message, there are special vararg-types
(
Hi Slava,
> On Jan 4, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-dev
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In Swift 3.0, the following examples both typecheck:
>
> let fn1: ([Int]) -> () = {
> let _: [Int] = $0
> }
>
> let fn2: (Int...) -> () = {
> let _: [Int] = $0
> }
>
> This stopped working due to a
> On Jan 5, 2017, at 1:05 AM, Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
>> I think it would be better if we permitted an implicit conversion between
>> (T…) -> () and ([T]) -> ()
> There has been a proposal to replace the "…" with a "variadic"-annotation (on
> arrays, or even on all types
Hi there,
> I think it would be better if we permitted an implicit conversion between
> (T…) -> () and ([T]) -> ()
There has been a proposal to replace the "…" with a "variadic"-annotation (on
arrays, or even on all types that can be expressed as arrays):
https://github.com/Haravikk/swift-evolu
Hi all,
In Swift 3.0, the following examples both typecheck:
let fn1: ([Int]) -> () = {
let _: [Int] = $0
}
let fn2: (Int...) -> () = {
let _: [Int] = $0
}
This stopped working due to a regression in master so I'm looking at fixing it.
While investigating this, I noticed that this variant
