> On May 20, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 20, 2016, at 7:26 AM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> (For instance, a perhaps controversial opinion: I think `dynamicType` is >>> properly capitalized for the syntactic slot it's in. That's not to say I >>> think we should *keep* `dynamicType`, but simply that `foo.dynamicType` is >>> more appropriate than `foo.dynamictype` would be.) >> >> +1. 'foo.dynamictype' seems strange to me. > > foo.dynamicType is broken for other reasons. I see x.dynamicType as being a > named operator (like sizeof) and not a property. For example, we don’t want > .dynamicType to show up in code completion on every value in the universe > ("4.dynamicType”, really?). > > That argues that it should be spelled as dynamicType(x), and ideally being a > standard library feature instead of a keyword.
That makes sense. It never crossed my mind until now, but given that `sizeof` is a standard library feature why isn’t it camel case `sizeOf`? Is this a case of “term of the art”? > > -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
