> On Nov 21, 2017, at 12:04 AM, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote: > > 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.
Cool. > 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. Makes sense, I re-removed “Lookup”. I also just added a new alternative: "Collapse the two protocols into a single one with a get-only requirement”. It is either crazy bad or crazy good, let me know what you think. -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
