> On Oct 5, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Now, as for naming: I like using the leading "C" convention ("CLibc") because
> it leaves us room for introducing an overlaid version of the module in the
> future without breaking source compatibility. Because of this, I wouldn't
> want to name the module just `C`, because it wouldn't leave room for a Swifty
> version later.
I don't think separating the raw C library translation from the pretty Swift
wrapper works, at least not for everybody. The problem is that the raw
translation is going to have functions that the pretty wrapper does not.
(Perhaps the pretty wrapper is new and incomplete. Perhaps an OS has added
functions and the pretty wrapper has not caught up yet.) If you try to import
both then you end up with the same problems of name collisions today and source
incompatibility in the future when the pretty wrapper grows.
--
Greg Parker gpar...@apple.com <mailto:gpar...@apple.com> Runtime
Wrangler
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
