IntegerLiteralExpressable? Does Apple employ any philosophers? We might need one...
l8r Sean Sent from my iPad > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:02 PM, Erica Sadun <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Sean Heber <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What about.. >> >> Syntax.ConvertibleFromIntegerLiteral >> etc.. > > I like it but Dave has already expressed that this isn't conversion. This > is something distinct, magical, and more importantly, ineffable. > > He says it means an instance of the type can be written as a literal, and > not converted from a literal. He writes: > >> Conformance to this protocol does *not* mean you can initialize the type with >> a literal. >> >> Proof: >> >> func f<T: IntegerLiteralConvertible>() -> T { >> return T(integerLiteral: 43) // Error >> return T(43) // Also an Error >> } >> >> It means an instance of the type can be *written* as a literal: >> >> func f<T: IntegerLiteralConvertible>() -> T { >> return 43 // OK >> } >>> > > So we're looking at something more like: > > Syntax.AnIntegerLiteralCanBeSubstitutedForThisTypeAndTheCompilerWillNotBarf > > -- E > > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
