I think this type might become more useful if we find a good name for it and better document it. For example, it is a natural fit for parameter list of Chris’ callable type proposal.
Since this type accepts duplicate “keys” and does not provide key-based lookup, the first thing that deserves a rename is “Key” generic parameter. I recommend naming it “Label”. This type represents how a dictionary literal looks, not what it means. When we consider the look of it, a dictionary literal is an array literal where each element is labeled. I can’t think of a really good name, but we may be able to find a more accurate and less confusing name. Some of the more accurate names are: LabeledElementCollection LabeledValueCollection LabeledValueList LabeledList By the way, why this type does not conform to any of the collection protocols while duplicating a lot of collection APIs? > On Jan 8, 2018, at 4:29 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. > > 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
