Am 18.05.2016 um 20:52 schrieb Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <[email protected]>:
>>> If we're doing this, I wonder if category 1 shouldn't just be >>> `Convertible`. This would preserve our `LiteralConvertible` protocols with >>> the same names (which, consistency issues aside, seem perfectly cromulent), >>> while shifting the `StringConvertible` protocols over to the >>> `Representable` category. >> >> Do you really think 'Convertible' is more clear than 'Initializable'? > > I don't think `Convertible` is clearer than `Initializable`, but I think it > rolls off the tongue better, is easier to spell, is more compatible with > non-initializer implementations, and in general wins on a lot of squishy, > subjective, hard-to-define axes. Well put! -Thorsten > > Subjectively, I've noticed that a lot of people *don't* think of things like > `Double(myFloat)` as being initializers; they think of them as conversions. > To those people, `Convertible` is probably the right name. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > 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
