The only problem I can see with ExpressibleAs is that it also reads if I could potentially do something like this type <-> literal, but the direction type -> literal is impossible.
-- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 1. Juli 2016 um 23:33:19, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution ([email protected]) schrieb: > On Jul 1, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > I also like `ExpressibleAsIntegerLiteral`. It uses the ~ible/~able > convention which suggests a capability, and when the name is worded > like this, it is definitely describing a capability of the type. I like it quite a bit as well. It’s the best name anyone has suggested. I have updated the proposal to reflect this decision. Any further comments should be in the context of this new draft. > > Dmitri > > -- > main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if > (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
