> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:59 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[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.
This is orthogonal to the discussion that happened in your thread, definitely no discussion of any changes to the requirements. :) We are discussing this proposal: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md> and specifically the use of the `Convertible` suffix for both the `*LiteralConvertible` protocols and the `Custom(Debug)StringConvertible` protocols where the conversion runs in opposite directions. The core team decision was: "The feedback on the proposal was generally positive about the idea of renaming these protocols, but the specific names in the proposal are not well received, and there is no apparent confluence in the community on better names. The core team prefers discussion to continue -- if/when there is a strong proposal for a better naming approach, we can reconsider renaming these." > > 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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
