> On Jul 1, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Erica Sadun <[email protected]> wrote: > > The best way to pass the Dave Test is to ask him directly, for example: > > Dave: > > Do you think the stdlib team would be okay with a naming scheme like > Syntax.Literal.ArrayProtocol, Syntax.Literal.IntegerProtocol, etc. We think > this produces a clear description of the conformant role and one that is > unlikely to be > misinterpreted. It may read less fluently but it's also less subject to > confusing users. > > This naming scheme uses the Syntax namespacing, and creates a Literal > subspace. > Each protocol is named as "XXXXProtocol". This introduction a distinction > between > "This is/can be used as an integer literal" and "Conforming to this protocol > ensures > that an instance of the type can be written as an integer literal". > > The problem with earlier approximations was that people saw > "Syntax.IntegerLiteralXXX" > and thought the typed could be substituted into expressions where an integer > literal > was used, and not that an integer literal could be be used to write an > instance of > the type. > > So what do (and your team) think of this idea? > > -- Adrian (and Erica)
This one has been added to the alternatives section of the proposal. I expect the bike shedding to continue during review and expect the core team to exercise judgement in selecting the final naming scheme. > > >> On Jul 1, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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.) >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
