on Mon Jun 27 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >>> 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`. > >> >> The first two names are so esoteric that I can't imagine them being anything >> but >> confusing, and “Modeling” is redundant; everything that conforms to a >> protocol models that protocol. >> >> If we were to add words to the name, I'd go with >> >> IntegerLiteralExpressible >> >> I *think* I still would want to sink this name into the Syntax >> namespace, though. > > You didn't respond to my earlier suggestion so I'd like to pitch it again. > > What about "Syntax.IntegerLiteralConsumer", which suggests that > conforming types can consume integer literal syntax as native to their > type.
To me, the idea of a type (other than, say, a parser) consuming syntax is pretty alien. So this one is sorta esoteric too, IMO. -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
