I’m very happy with this new version of the proposal. Splitting into two protocols makes a lot of sense - the JSON example alone is argument enough.
To bike-shedding: while I understand the need to keep the identifier names verbose, I would prefer the subscript label to be more representative by renaming it to dynamicMember - lookup can be interpreted as a verb, which is odd in a label. > On 21 Nov 2017, at 07:36, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I’ve significantly revised the ‘dynamic member lookup’ pitch, here’s the > second edition: > https://gist.github.com/lattner/b016e1cf86c43732c8d82f90e5ae5438 > > I’ve incorporated some minor changes to it: > - I’ve made it possible to provide read-only dynamic members. > - I’ve added an example JSON use-case which uses read-only dynamic members. > - Minor wording changes. > > That said, this is significantly similar to the earlier draft. I welcome > suggestions for improvements to the proposal, and insight into anything that > is unclear or insufficiently motivated. > > Thanks! > > -Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
