on Sat Jul 02 2016, Riley Testut <rileytestut-AT-gmail.com> wrote: > (My bad, accidentally hit send too early). > > That, or we could keep either the Convert or Express forms with > "IntegerLiteralConverting" or "IntegerLiteralExpressing". And if we > decide "express" really is the best word to describe what happens, I > personally prefer "IntegerLiteralExpressing" to > "ExpressibleAsIntegerLiteral", which doesn't feel at home with the > other Swift protocol names.
It doesn't matter if it “feels at home” if it has the wrong meaning. It's not that Integer can express an integer literal; It's that an integer literal can express an Integer. When naming, we need to learn to stop treating the comfortable ring of familiar word patterns as an arbiter of success. > > Riley > >> On Jul 2, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Riley Testut <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I kinda agree that these names still aren't the best. FWIW, I much >> preferred the originals, even if they could be misleading. >> >> What if we changed the names to be verbs instead of adjectives? Something >> like "IntegerLiteralTransforming"? >> >>> On Jul 2, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> on Sat Jul 02 2016, Anton Zhilin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> -1 from me. I suggest to wait until we get generic protocols >>>> in Swift 4, then we can use the following: >>>> >>>> protocol From<T> { >>>> init(_ from: T) >>>> } >>>> >>>> And deprecate all the weird Convertibles. >>> >>> Even if we could do that, “From” would never be an appropriate name for >>> the ability to express a type as a particular kind of literal. >>> >>> -- >>> -Dave >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
