> I think our decision should be based upon which syntactic construct feels > least inconsistent with other similar syntactic constructs and therefore > feels the least arbitrary. Restricting the usage of a generic `Literal` type > to literal convertible initializers feels a little bit less arbitrary than > allowing the call site to omit a label, but it feels a little bit more > arbitrary than introducing an attribute that has a very specialized context > of applicability.
Honestly, I think `@literal` is only "consistent" with the rest of the language in that @s are used to mark compiler magic. `Literal<>` is attempting to *not* be much more magical than, say, `StringInterpolationConvertible`, where a particular syntax generates a certain pattern of calls. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
