Thanks, I like "Lossless" too. Further suggestions on naming would be appreciated from anyone.
Austin > On May 27, 2016, at 9:03 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > This looks good. I like your use of the term "lossless"; perhaps we can use > it consistently, i.e. LosslessStringConvertible. The implication by > comparison would be that CustomStringConvertible makes no guarantee of > losslessness. > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 23:52 Austin Zheng via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hello swift-evolution, > > I've put together a preliminary v2 of the proposal, taking into account > feedback expressed on this thread. I would appreciate any comments, > suggestions, or criticisms. > > https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-edit-89/proposals/0089-rename-string-reflection-init.md > > <https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-edit-89/proposals/0089-rename-string-reflection-init.md> > > If any objections can be worked out quickly, I hope to resubmit this proposal > for review early next week. > > Best, > Austin > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Patrick Smith via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Is there any possibility we can break from this? Especially as: > > 1. ValuePreservingStringConvertible expects its description to be value > preserving, but current Cocoa implementations are not. > 2. ‘Description’ doesn’t really convey the meaning of ‘value preserving’ in > my mind, but is a valuable name for many other use cases. > 3. Swift 3 has a wide range of breaking changes for the better. > 4. With the presence of ValuePreservingStringConvertible, > CustomStringConvertible doesn’t seem to provide much value over > CustomDebugStringConvertible? > > For string interpolation, I imagine the standard library could fall back to a > ‘description’ method for NSObject subclasses. > > Thanks, > > Patrick > > > On 28 May 2016, at 7:49 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > on Thu May 26 2016, Patrick Smith <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > >>> On 27 May 2016, at 2:40 PM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution > >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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’? > > > > The main reason was backward compatibility with Cocoa, which already has > > a “description” property. > > > >> Especially if NSObject subclasses won’t fit, then why not have a > >> different method that can be strictly value preserving? (Then > >> `description` can stay being an NSObject thing.) > > > > -- > > Dave > > > > _______________________________________________ > > swift-evolution mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
