Why we can not stay with the first one that is more consistent? The impact is to replace declarations like:
func myMethod(something something: AnyObject)
With
func myMethod(something: AnyObject)
And replace:
func myOtherMethod(something: AnyObject)
With
func myOtherMethod(_ somethings: AnyObject)
An alternative might be to always require both names, but offer a shorthand for saying they're the same. Purely as an illustrative example, this would mess up syntax highlighting, but it follows an English punctuation usage:
func myMethod(something ": AnyObject) // shorthand for `something something:`
This is perhaps a little more realistic, drawing on our convention of magic compiler substitution:
func myMethod(something #: AnyObject) // shorthand for `something something:`
(Swift 1, of course, had `#something` for that, but dropped it, apparently because it was arbitrary and became rarely needed when methods and functions got the same parameter labeling rules in Swift 2. Neither of those would be the case now.)
In short, the whole "should we have default labels or not" question can simply go away forever for an extra two characters per parameter. That might be worth it.
How often do you find yourself wanting an internal parameter name, but not an external (case 4)? I think it’s very rare.
I doubt that the compiler’s AI will be able to deal with case 2.b, automatically, any time soon. That is okay with me, as long as we can manually type direct objects that would not be clear with only a preposition.
I think these represent the options for parameter names in order of prevalence. Case 3 has obviously never been available in Swift, but can be emulated with generic-sounding internal parameter names. If those types of names were not necessary, I believe all of these “opting” problems would go away. Is that incorrect?
1. Internal is the same as external
func function(int: Int) {}
2. External and internal names are different
a. func doThing(with int: Int) {}
b. func doThing(withGiraffe giraffe: Any) {}
3. No parameter name is needed internally or externally
func function(Int)
4. Underscore for external, name for internal
func function(_ int: Int) {}
If we decide to allow external names without an internal name, I’m strongly in favor of the “func doThing(with _: Int) {}“ syntax. It makes it crystal clear that we’re purposefully not assigning an internal name to that argument.
- Dave Sweeris
···
On Feb 8, 2016, at 16:46, Jessy Catterwaul via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Sorry, I forgot about this one:
5. An external, but not internal parameter name is needed. I don’t think a colon is useful in these cases.
func doThing(with Int) {}
It also could satisfy a protocol requirement, without having to resort to this kind of underscore usage, which should become illegal:
func doThing(with _: Int) {}
On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:32 PM, Jessy Catterwaul <mr.jessy@gmail.com <mailto:mr.jessy@gmail.com>> wrote:
How often do you find yourself wanting an internal parameter name, but not an external (case 4)? I think it’s very rare.
I doubt that the compiler’s AI will be able to deal with case 2.b, automatically, any time soon. That is okay with me, as long as we can manually type direct objects that would not be clear with only a preposition.
I think these represent the options for parameter names in order of prevalence. Case 3 has obviously never been available in Swift, but can be emulated with generic-sounding internal parameter names. If those types of names were not necessary, I believe all of these “opting” problems would go away. Is that incorrect?
1. Internal is the same as external
func function(int: Int) {}
2. External and internal names are different
a. func doThing(with int: Int) {}
b. func doThing(withGiraffe giraffe: Any) {}
3. No parameter name is needed internally or externally
func function(Int)
4. Underscore for external, name for internal
func function(_ int: Int) {}
Among other things, this allows a warning or style check equivalent to Clang's -Wunused-param. You could always give the parameter a dummy name and then assign it to _, but this makes the intent clearer, IMHO, that the parameter is ignored.
On the other hand, it also destroys any way of referring to it in a doc comment, so if you want to say why it's ignored you're in trouble.
Jordan
···
On Feb 8, 2016, at 18:08, Dave via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
If we decide to allow external names without an internal name, I’m strongly in favor of the “func doThing(with _: Int) {}“ syntax. It makes it crystal clear that we’re purposefully not assigning an internal name to that argument.
- Dave Sweeris
On Feb 8, 2016, at 16:46, Jessy Catterwaul via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
Sorry, I forgot about this one:
5. An external, but not internal parameter name is needed. I don’t think a colon is useful in these cases.
func doThing(with Int) {}
It also could satisfy a protocol requirement, without having to resort to this kind of underscore usage, which should become illegal:
func doThing(with _: Int) {}
On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:32 PM, Jessy Catterwaul <mr.jessy@gmail.com <mailto:mr.jessy@gmail.com>> wrote:
How often do you find yourself wanting an internal parameter name, but not an external (case 4)? I think it’s very rare.
I doubt that the compiler’s AI will be able to deal with case 2.b, automatically, any time soon. That is okay with me, as long as we can manually type direct objects that would not be clear with only a preposition.
I think these represent the options for parameter names in order of prevalence. Case 3 has obviously never been available in Swift, but can be emulated with generic-sounding internal parameter names. If those types of names were not necessary, I believe all of these “opting” problems would go away. Is that incorrect?
1. Internal is the same as external
func function(int: Int) {}
2. External and internal names are different
a. func doThing(with int: Int) {}
b. func doThing(withGiraffe giraffe: Any) {}
3. No parameter name is needed internally or externally
func function(Int)
4. Underscore for external, name for internal
func function(_ int: Int) {}
5. An external, but not internal parameter name is needed. I don’t think a colon is useful in these cases.
func doThing(with Int) {}
It also could satisfy a protocol requirement, without having to resort to this kind of underscore usage, which should become illegal:
func doThing(with _: Int) {}
···
On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:32 PM, Jessy Catterwaul <mr.jessy@gmail.com> wrote:
How often do you find yourself wanting an internal parameter name, but not an external (case 4)? I think it’s very rare.
I doubt that the compiler’s AI will be able to deal with case 2.b, automatically, any time soon. That is okay with me, as long as we can manually type direct objects that would not be clear with only a preposition.
I think these represent the options for parameter names in order of prevalence. Case 3 has obviously never been available in Swift, but can be emulated with generic-sounding internal parameter names. If those types of names were not necessary, I believe all of these “opting” problems would go away. Is that incorrect?
1. Internal is the same as external
func function(int: Int) {}
2. External and internal names are different
a. func doThing(with int: Int) {}
b. func doThing(withGiraffe giraffe: Any) {}
3. No parameter name is needed internally or externally
func function(Int)
4. Underscore for external, name for internal
func function(_ int: Int) {}
on Mon Feb 08 2016, Dave <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
If we decide to allow external names without an internal name, I’m
strongly in favor of the “func doThing(with _: Int) {}“ syntax. It
makes it crystal clear that we’re purposefully not assigning an
internal name to that argument.
- Dave Sweeris
On Feb 8, 2016, at 16:46, Jessy Catterwaul via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Sorry, I forgot about this one:
5. An external, but not internal parameter name is needed. I don’t
think a colon is useful in these cases.
func doThing(with Int) {}
It also could satisfy a protocol requirement, without having to
resort to this kind of underscore usage, which should become
illegal:
func doThing(with _: Int) {}
On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:32 PM, Jessy Catterwaul >>> <mr.jessy@gmail.com >>> <mailto:mr.jessy@gmail.com>> wrote:
How often do you find yourself wanting an internal parameter name,
but not an external (case 4)? I think it’s very rare.
I doubt that the compiler’s AI will be able to deal with case 2.b,
automatically, any time soon. That is okay with me, as long as we
can manually type direct objects that would not be clear with only
a preposition.
I think these represent the options for parameter names in order of
prevalence. Case 3 has obviously never been available in Swift, but
can be emulated with generic-sounding internal parameter names. If
those types of names were not necessary, I believe all of these
“opting” problems would go away. Is that incorrect?
1. Internal is the same as external
func function(int: Int) {}
2. External and internal names are different
a. func doThing(with int: Int) {}
b. func doThing(withGiraffe giraffe: Any) {}
3. No parameter name is needed internally or externally
func function(Int)
4. Underscore for external, name for internal
func function(_ int: Int) {}
That’s different than what doesn’t yet compile, but ought to, to account for nondescript parameters.
protocol Protocol {
func printGoat(@autoclosure while () -> Bool)
}
struct Implementer: Protocol {
func printGoat(@autoclosure while () -> Bool) {
// $0 must be used in this function
while $0() {print("Goat")}
}
}
Implementer().printGoat(while: swimmingInMoat)
···
On Feb 8, 2016, at 9:08 PM, davesweeris@mac.com wrote:
If we decide to allow external names without an internal name, I’m strongly in favor of the “func doThing(with _: Int) {}“ syntax. It makes it crystal clear that we’re purposefully not assigning an internal name to that argument.
- Dave Sweeris
On Feb 8, 2016, at 16:46, Jessy Catterwaul via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
Sorry, I forgot about this one:
5. An external, but not internal parameter name is needed. I don’t think a colon is useful in these cases.
func doThing(with Int) {}
It also could satisfy a protocol requirement, without having to resort to this kind of underscore usage, which should become illegal:
func doThing(with _: Int) {}
On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:32 PM, Jessy Catterwaul <mr.jessy@gmail.com <mailto:mr.jessy@gmail.com>> wrote:
How often do you find yourself wanting an internal parameter name, but not an external (case 4)? I think it’s very rare.
I doubt that the compiler’s AI will be able to deal with case 2.b, automatically, any time soon. That is okay with me, as long as we can manually type direct objects that would not be clear with only a preposition.
I think these represent the options for parameter names in order of prevalence. Case 3 has obviously never been available in Swift, but can be emulated with generic-sounding internal parameter names. If those types of names were not necessary, I believe all of these “opting” problems would go away. Is that incorrect?
1. Internal is the same as external
func function(int: Int) {}
2. External and internal names are different
a. func doThing(with int: Int) {}
b. func doThing(withGiraffe giraffe: Any) {}
3. No parameter name is needed internally or externally
func function(Int)
4. Underscore for external, name for internal
func function(_ int: Int) {}
I agree that we should have this discussion, but I think it is imperative that we wait until the naming discussion settles down. Any decision on the language behavior here will be necessarily shaped by how that works out.
-Chris
···
On Feb 8, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Vanderlei Martinelli via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Hello.
I think this was discussed before somewhere and I do not know what the conclusion was, but since we have this in the documentation: