On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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”? > See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/15830/ > > > > > -Chris > > _______________________________________________ > 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
