> On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Rationalizing base conversion protocol names. I personally don't have the >> heart to try to re-address the "LiteralConvertible" protocol naming thing >> again but this would be the last chance to do anything about getting this >> issue addressed. > Given the vast amount of bike shedding that has already happened around this > topic, I don’t think there is a solution that everyone will be happy with. > It is also unclear (to me at least) what solution might be acceptable to the > core team.
To be clear, I don't care about the name. If you want to rename IntegerLiteralConvertible to IntegerLiteral or whatever, I won't drag the conversation into the muck again. :) It's the design of the requirements that I'm pretty opposed to revisiting. John. > > At the same time, it continues to bother me that `Convertible` is used by > standard library protocols with two completely different meanings. This is a > problem that deserves to be solved and as it involves a breaking change Swift > 3 is the right timeframe in which to do so. > > If the core team is able to indicate an approach they favor I would be > willing to revise and resubmit the proposal. But I don’t want to spend any > further time speculating about what solution might be considered acceptable. > > Matthew > > _______________________________________________ > 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
