> On Jan 8, 2018, at 9:07 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While there’s nothing specifically to do with a dictionary, it is a literal 
> in at least one essential respect. Like other literals, it doesn’t have a 
> type, but values that are expressed by them do acquire a type given the 
> context.

This confusion is why we really need to rename this—there are two separate 

1) Dictionary literals. These are written as comma-separated key-value pairs, 
with each key-value pair separated by a colon—[a: b, c: d, e: f]. Most users of 
Swift have probably only ever used these to create instances of the Dictionary 
type, but any type that conforms to ExpressibleByDictionaryLiteral can be 
expressed using one. Crucially, like integer literals that can express an `Int` 
value, a `UInt8` value, or a value of any other integer or floating-point type, 
dictionary literals have no concrete type until they’re evaluated in context.

2) The `DictionaryLiteral` type. This is a generic type that conforms to 
ExpressibleByDictionaryLiteral, but is otherwise an unremarkable collection 
with `(Key, Value)` elements. You can see its declaration here: 
 Despite the name, `DictionaryLiteral` is not a literal—it’s a concrete type 
and can’t be used to express dictionaries or other types that conform to 

It’s #2 that we’re talking about renaming, and while I think both parts of the 
name (“Dictionary” and “Literal”) are inaccurate, “Literal” is more problematic 
because of the confusion it causes with lower-case literals.


> Yes, it's not a dictionary, but neither is an integer literal an integer (or 
> even necessarily an integer you can create from such a literal: it can be a 
> floating-point value you create from that literal), etc. Would "ordered 
> collection of key-value pairs" be more "correct"? By the same token, we ought 
> to be renaming integer literals "ordered collection of digits without 
> interposed decimal point."
> But essentially every user will have encountered this spelling in the context 
> of dictionaries: in other words, its name has a good basis in reality because 
> it is the (only) literal spelling that can be used to create a dictionary, 
> and when you say "hey, that spelling you use for a literal to instantiate a 
> dictionary in Swift," everyone will know what you're talking about. 
> No, I think we ought to do nothing. It's not only "not bad," but as far as I 
> can tell quite superior to the alternatives in essentially every respect. In 
> the alternative, maybe "KeyValueLiteral" or something of that sort, but I 
> still would consider that to be strictly inferior to "DictionaryLiteral".
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 20:24 Nate Cook via swift-evolution 
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> > On Jan 8, 2018, at 6:29 PM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution 
>> > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > There exists in the standard library a type `DictionaryLiteral` that 
>> > deserves naming re-consideration before we declare ABI Stability, because 
>> > it’s confusingly misnamed, being neither a Dictionary (it doesn’t provide 
>> > key-based lookup of values) nor a Literal.
>> >
>> > Instead, it’s just an immutable collection of key-value pairs you can 
>> > create _from_ a literal.
>> >
>> > I’m canvassing for opinions on what it ought to be called.  Some 
>> > suggestions so far:
>> >
>> > - `AssociationCollection`: Following the term of art from some other 
>> > languages. Slightly obscure-sounding to developers not already familiar. 
>> > Also “association” and “associative” are confusingly similar, which brings 
>> > back the is-this-a-dictionary problem.
>> > - `KeyValueCollection`: Problematic because key-value comes up in a 
>> > totally different context in Cocoa.
>> > - `PairCollection`: “Pair” is kinda nondescript.
>> > - Do nothing. It’s not so bad.
>> Agreed so far, and I'd like to add CollectionOfPairs to the list.
>> Some more fun facts about this type:
>> - Besides Dictionary, it's the only other type in the standard library that 
>> is expressible by a dictionary literal
>> - Unlike Dictionary, it *does* maintain the order of its pairs
>> - Unlike Dictionary (part 2), it *doesn't* require the first element of the 
>> pairs to be Hashable
>> Nate
>> > The old name can live on indefinitely via a typealias (which has no ABI 
>> > consequences, so could be retired at a later date once everyone has had 
>> > plenty of time to address the deprecation warnings). Removing it as not 
>> > carrying its weight (and instead using `[(Key,Value)]`, which is basically 
>> > what it’s a wrapper for) is probably off the table for source stability 
>> > reasons.
>> >
>> > Any further thoughts welcome.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to