We haven’t pass the dave test yet? :D Still curious what he’d say about Syntax.Literal.*Protocol
One more question: What can the namespace Syntax could be used for except for literals, any idea? (I have no clue.) -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 30. Juni 2016 um 03:30:15, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution ([email protected]) schrieb: > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> `Syntax.IntegerLiteralType` is another that popped into my mind this >> morning. I don’t recall if that has been mentioned yet. The idea here is >> that an integer literal *can be typed as* a type that conforms to this >> protocol (the type suffix *is not* used in the sense that it used to be used >> in things like `SequenceType` which had the semantic that conforming types >> *are* sequences). > > Throwing my hat in: > > IntegerLiteralCandidate (with or without a Syntax. prefix) > > As in, when you see an integer literal and need to infer its actual type, > this type is a candidate. Thanks Brent. For everyone who is bike shedding here - feel free to continue informally. However, I don’t plan to incorporate every alternative from the bikeshed into the alternatives section unless folks feel it is critical to do so. I would prefer that everyone save their personal favorite(s) for the review period and continue the bike shedding at that time. The proposal already suggests the core team consider modifying the names based on bike shedding during review. I hope that will be sufficient. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > _______________________________________________ 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
