Does "lossless" preclude floating-point numbers from being printed in decimal unless they are exactly representable?
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:04 PM Austin Zheng via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 >> >> 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]> 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]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > on Thu May 26 2016, Patrick Smith <[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’? >>> > >>> > 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] >>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
