[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

[Matthew Johnson]

Sent from my iPad

> On May 10, 2016, at 9:33 PM, Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 10, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 10, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Swift community,
>>> 
>>> The review of "SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions" begins now and runs through May 16. The proposal is available here:
>>> 
>>>    https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md
>> 
>> Here are comments from someone who preferred to stay anonymous.  These are not my own:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>> 
>> I rather agree with the comments mentioned in the proposal from the Standard Library design team, in that I agree with the basic intention of the proposal, but I’m not convinced about the proposed answer. Specifically:
> 
> 
> We'd be happy to bikeshed again.
> 
> I think fundamentally our take on this is:
> 
> * We want there to be a standard that expresses the three conversion/initialization styles.
> * We feel the system is currently broken. And we want to have a coherent and settled vision in place for 3, even imperfect.
> * We're flexible about the naming but it should be (1) Swifty and (2) well grounded in meaning.
> 
> Let me turn the floor over to Matthew here.

I agree with Erica here.  

There was a significant round of bike shedding that went into this proposal a few months ago, but there is no harm in continuing that exercise now that a broader audience is engaged.  As many reviewers have agreed, the important thing is to settle on *something*.

Several reviewers have mentioned Creatable as not feeling Swifty.  FWIW, the history behind the name is that we wanted something that will work regardless of the mechanism.  It should be a sensible name whether the requirement is an initializer or a factory method.

I'm hoping we can reach a convention that most of us are happy with by the end of the review period.  

> 
> -- E
>