Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Tue Jun 28 2016, Erica Sadun wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:46 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: >> >> >> on Mon Jun 27 2016, Erica Sadun wrote: >> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution wrote: > Maybe we could say that the type gives form to the l

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:46 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: > > > on Mon Jun 27 2016, Erica Sadun wrote: > >>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>> wrote: >>> Maybe we could say that the type gives form to the literal or embodies the literal? Thus maybe a na

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > on Thu Jun 23 2016, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution < > > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:3

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Mon Jun 27 2016, Erica Sadun wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >>> Maybe we could say that the type gives form to the literal or embodies >>> the literal? Thus maybe a name like `IntegerLiteralEmbodiment` or >>> `IntegerLiteralManifestati

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> Maybe we could say that the type gives form to the literal or embodies >> the literal? Thus maybe a name like `IntegerLiteralEmbodiment` or >> `IntegerLiteralManifestation`, maybe even `IntegerLiteralModeling`. > >

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Thu Jun 23 2016, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Sweeris >> wrote: >> >> That's a really

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Mon Jun 27 2016, David Sweeris wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 13:13, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> There's an exception to everything. In this case, protocols used to >> interface with the language at the lowest levels may be purely about >> syntax. > > Should we use a

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 13:13, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: > > There's an exception to everything. In this case, protocols used to > interface with the language at the lowest levels may be purely about > syntax. Should we use a different word to declare such protocols? syntax Int

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: > > > on Mon Jun 27 2016, Erica Sadun > wrote: >> So a protocol of `Syntax.AcceptsIntegerLiteralValues` or >> `Syntax.AutoconvertsIntegerLiteralValues` might >> better explain what this is doing and the inten

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Mon Jun 27 2016, Erica Sadun wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: >>> Second, I wonder if it might make more sense to name the protocols >>> `Syntax.IntegerLiteralInitializable`. Dave has opposed >>> `Initializable` as a general convention becaus

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

Regards LM (From mobile) > On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> >> on Wed Jun 22 2016, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: >> Second, I wonder if it might make more sense to name the protocols >> `Syntax.IntegerLiteralInitializable`. Dave has opposed >> `Initializable` as a general convention because it implies pure syntax >> and doesn’t carr

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Mon Jun 27 2016, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> >> on Wed Jun 22 2016, Matthew Johnson >> > wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko mailto:griboz...@gmail.

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: > > > on Wed Jun 22 2016, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko >>> mailto:griboz...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM,

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Wed Jun 22 2016, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko >> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> >> > >> wrote: >>> Proposal: >>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/mast

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Thu Jun 23 2016, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Dmitri Gribenko > > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Xiaodi Wu >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitr

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

I like how your suggestion reads. It will namespace all literal convertibles while also reading more clearly on what conforming to the protocol implies. I now understand the intent of the Syntax namespace however I think you suggested naming would be better. -Shawn On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:26 P

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitri Gribenko > wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution > wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Sweeris >> >> wrote: >> >> That's a really interesting i

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Sweeris > wrote: > >> That's a really interesting idea. Is "Syntax" a placeholder, or is

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Sweeris wrote: >> That's a really interesting idea. Is "Syntax" a placeholder, or is that the >> intended name? > > It is the best name we could come up with, we are open to better suggestions. I

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Proposal: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-c

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> Proposal: >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md >> >> Re

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > protocol _IntegerLiteralSyntax {} > enum Syntax { > typealias IntegerLiteral = _IntegerLiteralSyntax > } > > And used like this: > > struct Int : Syntax.IntegerLiteral {} > > > Is an

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Sweeris wrote: > That's a really interesting idea. Is "Syntax" a placeholder, or is that the > intended name? It is the best name we could come up with, we are open to better suggestions. > Also, why an enum? Especially one without any cases... It is not

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

That's a really interesting idea. Is "Syntax" a placeholder, or is that the intended name? Also, why an enum? Especially one without any cases... Was all this already discussed in a thread that I missed (or have otherwise forgotten about)? - Dave Sweeris Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 22, 2016,

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Wed Jun 22 2016, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> > > > >> wrote: >>> Proposal: >>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> Proposal: >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md >> >> Re

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:57 PM, David Sweeris wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> Hi Erica, >> >> I would like to re-state the feedback from Dave Abrahams

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

on Wed Jun 22 2016, David Sweeris wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> > >> Hi Erica, >> >> I would like to re-state the feedback from Dave Abrahams, Max Moi

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Hi Erica, > > I would like to re-state the feedback from Dave Abrahams, Max Moiseev > and me from the last time this was discussed.

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Quick thoughts: > > Isomorphic is a delightful word. > > Initializing has the wrong meaning, I think. If A conforms to BInitializing, > that reads to me like you can do B(A), not necessarily A(B). By contrast, > BInit

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution wrote: > Proposal: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md > > Rejection: "The feedback on the proposal was generally positive about the > idea of renaming these proto

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

Quick thoughts: Isomorphic is a delightful word. Initializing has the wrong meaning, I think. If A conforms to BInitializing, that reads to me like you can do B(A), not necessarily A(B). By contrast, BInitializable conveys more clearly the sense that A can be initialized with an argument of type

[swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

Proposal: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md Rejection: "The feedback on the proposal was generally positive about the ide