> On 27 May 2016, at 07:14, Patrick Smith via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 27 May 2016, at 2:40 PM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Any of the NSObject subclass candidates may require their `description`s to
>> be altered to meet the semantics, which may or may not be an acceptable
>> breaking change.
>
> Do you think it might be worth changing `description` to be named something
> else? Something more clear, less likely to conflict with ‘real’ properties —
> ‘description’ doesn’t seem to portray something that is value-preserving.
> What is the reason for calling it ‘description’?
I’m also not quite sure (from the suggested names) whether the intended use is
to be “a string *description* that happens to be value-preserving” (for which
the name description might be ok), or “a value-preserving version of the
instance as string *with no intent of that string ever being descriptive or
helpful when presented to anything other than the matching initialiser of the
same type*” (which rather be one form of serialisation).
Daniel.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
