[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Returned for revision] SE-0089: Renaming String.init<T>(_: T)

[Xiaodi Wu]

This looks good. I like your use of the term "lossless"; perhaps we can use
it consistently, i.e. LosslessStringConvertible. The implication by
comparison would be that CustomStringConvertible makes no guarantee of
losslessness.
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 23:52 Austin Zheng via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> Hello swift-evolution,
>
> I've put together a preliminary v2 of the proposal, taking into account
> feedback expressed on this thread. I would appreciate any comments,
> suggestions, or criticisms.
>
>
> https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-edit-89/proposals/0089-rename-string-reflection-init.md
>
> If any objections can be worked out quickly, I hope to resubmit this
> proposal for review early next week.
>
> Best,
> Austin
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Patrick Smith via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>> Is there any possibility we can break from this? Especially as:
>>
>> 1. ValuePreservingStringConvertible expects its description to be value
>> preserving, but current Cocoa implementations are not.
>> 2. ‘Description’ doesn’t really convey the meaning of ‘value preserving’
>> in my mind, but is a valuable name for many other use cases.
>> 3. Swift 3 has a wide range of breaking changes for the better.
>> 4. With the presence of ValuePreservingStringConvertible,
>> CustomStringConvertible doesn’t seem to provide much value over
>> CustomDebugStringConvertible?
>>
>> For string interpolation, I imagine the standard library could fall back
>> to a ‘description’ method for NSObject subclasses.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> > On 28 May 2016, at 7:49 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > on Thu May 26 2016, Patrick Smith <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> On 27 May 2016, at 2:40 PM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Any of the NSObject subclass candidates may require their
>> >>> `description`s to be altered to meet the semantics, which may or may
>> >>> not be an acceptable breaking change.
>> >>
>> >> Do you think it might be worth changing `description` to be named
>> >> something else? Something more clear, less likely to conflict with
>> >> ‘real’ properties — ‘description’ doesn’t seem to portray something
>> >> that is value-preserving. What is the reason for calling it
>> >> ‘description’?
>> >
>> > The main reason was backward compatibility with Cocoa, which already has
>> > a “description” property.
>> >
>> >> Especially if NSObject subclasses won’t fit, then why not have a
>> >> different method that can be strictly value preserving? (Then
>> >> `description` can stay being an NSObject thing.)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dave
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > swift-evolution mailing list
>> > swift-evolution at swift.org
>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160528/7612f232/attachment.html>