I thought your suggestion of IntegerLiteralExpressible (with or without Syntax) was nice too. On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 15:35 Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > on Fri Jul 01 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> 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. > > No. IMO Putting “Protocol” in the name just adds redundant type > information that doesn't help readability. > > > 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? > > I think if `Syntax.IntegerLiteral` is actually unclear then the best > cure is `ExpressibleAsIntegerLiteral` (no namespace needed). None of > the other suggestions I've seen describe what the protocol means as well > as that. I've asked Matthew to update the proposal accordingly. > > > > > -- Adrian (and Erica) > > > >> On Jul 1, 2016, at 2:08 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < > [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.) > > > > -- > Dave > _______________________________________________ > 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
