# \[Accepted\] SE-0279: Multiple Trailing Closures

**URL:** <https://forums.swift.org/t/accepted-se-0279-multiple-trailing-closures/36141>\
**Category:** Announcements\
**Created:** [May 4, 2020, 7:36pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/accepted-se-0279-multiple-trailing-closures/36141 "2020-05-04T19:36:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DevAndArtist](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/devandartist/32/287_2.png) [@DevAndArtist](https://forums.swift.org/u/DevAndArtist)\
**Post date:** [May 4, 2020, 8:12pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/accepted-se-0279-multiple-trailing-closures/36141/7 "2020-05-04T20:12:07Z")

</div>

Thank you for replying. I personally wasn't saying that I'd want any ability to force `Binding(get: { ... }, set: { ... })` but rather the sweet spot of the current proposal, which in my mind would look like this:

```swift
Binding<...>
  get: { ... }
  set: { ... }

```

`Binding` is just one example of many. It doesn't have to be an `init` like this. The review thread showed other examples similar to this.

I respect the core team's decision, but I don't agree nor understand it.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/accepted-se-0279-multiple-trailing-closures/36141)._