[swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

John McCall rjmccall at apple.com
Wed Jun 22 10:59:59 CDT 2016

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> Rationalizing base conversion protocol names. I personally don't have the heart to try to re-address the "LiteralConvertible" protocol naming thing again but this would be the last chance to do anything about getting this issue addressed.
> Given the vast amount of bike shedding that has already happened around this topic, I don’t think there is a solution that everyone will be happy with.  It is also unclear (to me at least) what solution might be acceptable to the core team.  

To be clear, I don't care about the name.  If you want to rename IntegerLiteralConvertible to IntegerLiteral or whatever, I won't drag the conversation into the muck again. :)  It's the design of the requirements that I'm pretty opposed to revisiting.


> At the same time, it continues to bother me that `Convertible` is used by standard library protocols with two completely different meanings.  This is a problem that deserves to be solved and as it involves a breaking change Swift 3 is the right timeframe in which to do so.
> If the core team is able to indicate an approach they favor I would be willing to revise and resubmit the proposal.  But I don’t want to spend any further time speculating about what solution might be considered acceptable.
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160622/a331d04a/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list