I think I agree. "description" to me implies something meant for humans to read, whatever the exact form. Something like "stringRepresentation" would be a more precise name for the property.
> On May 26, 2016, at 11:58 PM, Daniel Vollmer via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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 _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
