How about Syntax.IntegerLiteralDestination as a name? That way just as, for example, CustomStringConvertible can be read to mean “This type can be converted to a string in a custom manner”, we would have Syntax.IntegerLiteralDestination meaning “This type can be the destination for a literal integer in syntax.”
That said, I think Syntax.IntegerLiteral is sufficient. “This type can be a literal integer in syntax.” Nevin On Sunday, July 3, 2016, David Sweeris via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 2016, at 23:16, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > Change it to "Syntax.ExpressibleByIntegerLiteral" and I'd be onboard but > > I don't think it would pass the DaveTest despite it being only 2 > characters longer.[1] > > Yeah, I agree with "By" instead of "As". It makes it a bit clearer that > these protocols kinda work backwards, so to speak. That is, if I understand > things correctly, rather than adding functionality/semantics to the > conforming type, conforming to a literal protocol adds > functionality/semantics to the corresponding literal "type" (which we can't > directly interact with because they don't actually exist within Swift's > type system). > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
