Sent from my iPad
On May 10, 2016, at 5:56 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution <[email protected]> wrote: >> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > +1 for the idea of making the naming consistent > -1 for the actual chosen names > > Even after reading the reasoning behind the choice of those words, it took me > a time to scratch my head around it. It’s definitely not immediately obvious > that Convertible is bi-directional. > > I would have preferred something much more obvious (even if less > grammatically correct): > > -InputProtocol > -OutputProtocol > -InputOutputProtocol or BidirectionalProtocol > > Or: > > -Inputable > -Outputable (got that from Haskell) > -InputOutputable or -Bidirectionalable Thanks for your feedback. To be honest, I'm not a fan of the names you suggest. Erica had a similar variation using To, From, and ToAndFrom prefixes that I find preferable to your suggestions if we were to go in this direction. That said, I think the names in our proposal feel more Swifty. > >> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change >> to Swift? > > Yes. > >> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > > Yes for the idea of making them consistent, no for the names. > >> * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, >> how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > > Haskell uses Outputable. > >> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick >> reading, or an in-depth study? > > Read the proposal several times. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
