SE-0293 (second review): Extend Property Wrappers to Function and Closure Parameters

[hborla (Holly Borla)]

I think what you're suggesting is allowing property wrapper attributes only in parameter type positions to force the argument function to have the same wrapper attribute on that parameter, and to allow inference of the wrapper attribute on closure parameters. I still think a syntactic indication that you have a property wrapper is valuable, but I also don't think there's anything in this proposal preventing such a feature from being proposed in the future.

FWIW, there are a few more downsides that I outlined in the first review:

SE-0293: Extend Property Wrappers to Function and Closure Parameters

I agree that @Binding is unnecessary in the closure because Binding is a contextual type, so it can be inferred. However, I think there's a better solution than making property wrapper attributes some kind of type attribute. A few reasons why: What type does an anonymous closure parameter with a contextual property-wrapped type get? If it's the wrapped value type, do you access the backing wrapper and projected value with _$0 and $$0 (not the most readable syntax IMO)? If the anonymous closur…