[Watabou]

Swift has both external and internal parameter names for functions. This is to make API design more readable, easier to parse through.

For example, you can have a function like so:

    func greet(with greeting: String, to personName: String) {
        print("\(greeting), \(personName)!")
    }

In the above code, "with" and "to" are external names, and are only available when calling the function but are not available inside the function itself. So you would call this function like so:

    greet(with: "Hello", to: "Bob")

Now if you want to exclude the external name to call the functions, you use the "_" syntax. So you're right that it denotes an unused parameter. In this case, it's an unused external parameter name.

[saghm]

Having never used Swift, it feels like the syntax is being optimized for the less-common case; are named parameters considered the "default" choice in Swift, and is using different external names so common that it's worth cluttering the syntax for functions without external parameters in order to make the their own syntax easier?

[ridiculous_fish]

Named parameters are very much the default in Swift. Positional parameters are rare exceptions.

The internal/external name divide often works out beautifully. For example, let's equip Double with a multiply-add. An idiomatic Swift signature:

    extension Double {
      func multiply(by multiplier:Double, adding summand:Double) -> Double {
        return self * multiplier + summand
      }
    }

    print(3.multiply(by:4, adding:5))

Erase punctuation and you have:

    func multiply by multiplier adding summand

    print 3 multiply by 4 adding 5

The caller sees an action (multiply by, adding), the callee sees nouns (multiplier, summand). It's fantastically readable.

[jurip]

You can argue if it's useful or not on its own, but it makes sense when you consider that Swift is compatible with Objective-C. In Objective-C, that function would be a method like

    -(void) greetWith:(NSString *)greeting to:(NSString *)personName

and you'd call it like

    [self greetWith:@"Hello" to:@"Bob"]

Swift's external/internal parameters are built to allow the same style as was used with Objective-C and easy bridging. Swift's APIs tend to be terser than Objective-C ones, though.

[masklinn]

> are named parameters considered the "default" choice in Swift

Most definitely yes. In fact it used to be that the first parameter was implicitly positional (in Swift 2 IIRC), this was removed to make all parameters named by default.

And do note that you can provide a single label for a parameter, it will be used as both "internal" and "external" names:

    func foo(bar: String) {
        print(bar);
    }
    foo(bar: "3")

    func baz(qux quux: String) {
        print(quux);
    }
    baz(qux: "4")

> and is using different external names so common

Also yes, it's absolutely ubiquitous, if only because that's the one way to provide "positional" parameter.

[derefr]

Is there a parse-time reason that they required the "_" syntax, rather than simply:

    func greet(greeting: String, personName: String) {
        print("\(greeting), \(personName)!")
    }

[thramp]

It's a side effect of labeled arguments. The caller would use the function greet as `greet(greeting: "Hello", personName: "Alice")`.

[masklinn]

The reason is that named parameters is the default, so in your case greeting and personName are both "internal" and "external" names. "_ greeting" sets the external name to _ (aka positional) and the internal name to "greeting" instead.

[manmal]

I think it likely that labeled arguments were introduced mainly for Objective-C interoperability.

[Watabou]

For Obj-C fans though, named arguments are one of its best features. Yes, more verbose, easy to decipher, and led to great API design.

For the first versions of Swift, they actually had two versions. For functions (i.e not functions inside classes), you didn't have to have named arguments for the first parameter, but you did for methods (functions inside classes).

They explicitly added it for Swift 3 to make it more consistent with method.

I think I like the consistency more, but I do agree "_" is ugly. I don't have an idea of what else they could do though. I don't want Swift to make the parameter names optional, since no one would use it (like in Python, I rarely see named arguments being used)

[Grustaf]

Rather because it fits the Cocoa philosophy, that both Swift and ObjC subscribe to.

I think argument labels are great, makes the code much more readable.