Well, IteratorProtocol, LazySequenceProtocol weren't imported from ObjC. They set a precedent for the -Protocol suffix.
Now, even if you don't like RangeProtocol, this doesn't make RangeExpression better. "Expression" and `1...` don't belong to the same level of the language: one is a concept of that belongs to the compiler, when the other is a plain value used in a program: When a program does `1 + 2`, it both sums two integers, and builds a expression from two other expressions and an operator. Both are true. Yet 1 is of type `Integer`, not `IntegerExpression`. Currently all types of the standard library belong the program realm, not to the compiler realm. I wish we wouldn't break this practice, and avoid `RangeExpression`. That's why I suggest `RangeProtocol`. Other options could be `Ranging`, `Bounds`... Gwendal Roué > Le 19 avr. 2017 à 23:35, Jordan Rose <jordan_r...@apple.com> a écrit : > > That was probably about the ObjC importer, which does this (appends > "Protocol") when there's a class and protocol with the same name in the same > module. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to put in the API > guidelines, though. > > Jordan > > >> On Apr 19, 2017, at 10:59, Gmail via swift-evolution >> <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> I seem to recall that something (maybe a WWDC session) mentioned something >> about protocols that in essence represent a single type would have the >> Protocol-suffix. >> >> Unfortunately I couldn’t find it (yet?). The closest I’ve found so far is >> http://asciiwwdc.com/2014/sessions/407 but I’m not sure that was it. >> > essentially when there's a conflict between a class name and a protocol >> > name, we'll append protocol to the name of the protocol. >> >> David >> >>>> On 19 Apr 2017, at 17:55, Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution >>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 19 avr. 2017 à 17:23, Gwendal Roué <gwendal.r...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>> Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0172: One-sided Ranges >>>> >>>> "RangeExpression" is an unexpected name. I was expecting "RangeProtocol", >>>> as in IteratorProtocol and LazySequenceProtocol. We need a consistent >>>> suffix for protocols that can't be named in -able, -ible, or named with a >>>> simple noun because the noun is already used by a concrete type. >>>> "-Protocol" should be that prefix: RangeProtocol. >>> >>> A detailed look at API Design Guidelines  shows that this subject is not >>> addressed: >>> >>>> • Protocols that describe what something is should read as nouns (e.g. >>>> `Collection`). >>>> • Protocols that describe a capability should be named using the >>>> suffixes `able`, `ible`, or `ing` (e.g. `Equatable`, `ProgressReporting`). >>> >>> Nothing is said for "protocols that describe what something but can't be >>> named as nouns", or "protocols that describe a capability but can't be >>> named using the suffixes able, ible, or ing". >>> >>> For example: the name of the protocol for all ranges discussed with SE-0172 >>> should be addressed by the first rule (because the protocol describes what >>> something is rather than a capability). But that protocol can't be named >>> Range because Range is already taken. >>> >>> Such a situation comes rather easily: >>> >>> - in an evolving code base, when a protocol is added on top of an existing >>> type hierarchy which should be preserved (RangeProtocol added on top of >>> Range, ClosedRange, etc.) >>> - at the birth of a code base, when a protocol coexists with a concrete >>> type which rightfully deserves the noun claimed by the protocol. >>> >>> IteratorProtocol and LazySequenceProtocol have set a precedent: maybe we >>> should have the API Design Guidelines evolve with a third rule: >>> >>> + When a protocol can't be named with a noun, or with an `able`, `ible`, or >>> `ing` suffix, the protocol should be named using the suffix `Protocol` >>> (e.g. `IteratorProtocol`). >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Gwendal Roué >>>  https://swift.org/documentation/api-design-guidelines/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> email@example.com >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> firstname.lastname@example.org >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list email@example.com https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution