> On May 11, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We'd be happy to bikeshed again. >> >> I think fundamentally our take on this is: >> >> * We want there to be a standard that expresses the three >> conversion/initialization styles. >> * We feel the system is currently broken. And we want to have a coherent and >> settled vision in place for 3, even imperfect. >> * We're flexible about the naming but it should be (1) Swifty and (2) well >> grounded in meaning. >> >> Let me turn the floor over to Matthew here. > > I agree with Erica here. > > There was a significant round of bike shedding that went into this proposal a > few months ago, but there is no harm in continuing that exercise now that a > broader audience is engaged. As many reviewers have agreed, the important > thing is to settle on *something*. > > Several reviewers have mentioned Creatable as not feeling Swifty. FWIW, the > history behind the name is that we wanted something that will work regardless > of the mechanism. It should be a sensible name whether the requirement is an > initializer or a factory method. > > I'm hoping we can reach a convention that most of us are happy with by the > end of the review period.
If anyone wants to look back at the original discussion, you can find it here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/10883 <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/10883> -- E
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
