# Allow key path literal syntax in expressions expecting function type

**URL:** <https://forums.swift.org/t/allow-key-path-literal-syntax-in-expressions-expecting-function-type/16453>\
**Category:** Pitches\
**Created:** [September 25, 2018, 11:32pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/allow-key-path-literal-syntax-in-expressions-expecting-function-type/16453 "2018-09-25T23:32:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anandabits](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/anandabits/32/355_2.png) [@anandabits](https://forums.swift.org/u/anandabits)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/allow-key-path-literal-syntax-in-expressions-expecting-function-type/16453/15 "2018-10-25T15:52:00Z")

</div>

> [@jrose](#):
>
> The problem with reusing `Test.thing` is that it doesn't leave any syntax for static members. (This was all considered carefully in the initial proposal for key paths, [SE-0161](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0161-key-paths.md#alternatives-considered).)

It's also worth mentioning that the plan at this point is to revisit SE-0042 and introduce syntax similar to key paths for unbound method references (rather than incur the source breakage that would be necessary to implement SE-0042 as it was accepted). So consistent syntax is on the horizon, we're just not there yet.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/allow-key-path-literal-syntax-in-expressions-expecting-function-type/16453)._