[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions
erica at ericasadun.com
Wed May 11 13:33:47 CDT 2016
> On May 11, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com> wrote:
>> 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.
If anyone wants to look back at the original discussion, you can find it here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution