On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Sweeris <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> That's a really interesting idea. Is "Syntax" a placeholder, or is that > the intended name? > > > > It is the best name we could come up with, we are open to better > suggestions. > > I guess it depends on the intended semantics of the "namespace". If the > purpose is to be a container for the various LiteralConvertible protocols, > then maybe something like `AcceptsLiteralType.Integer` might be better? > It's a bit wordy, though. > I get what's being aimed at here, but I think the meaning of `Syntax` in this context is indecipherable. IIUC, the point to be conveyed by the term is that a literal has no type until it is supplied as an argument to the initializer and becomes typed. Maybe we could say that the type gives form to the literal or embodies the literal? Thus maybe a name like `IntegerLiteralEmbodiment` or `IntegerLiteralManifestation`, maybe even `IntegerLiteralModeling`. > > > >> Also, why an enum? Especially one without any cases... > > > > It is not possible to create an instance of an enum that does not have > > cases. It becomes essentially a namespace. > > Oh that's a clever work-around. I like it :-) > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > 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
