[swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

David Sweeris davesweeris at mac.com
Wed Jun 22 14:57:35 CDT 2016

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> Hi Erica,
> I would like to re-state the feedback from Dave Abrahams, Max Moiseev
> and me from the last time this was discussed.  Unfortunately I can't
> find the exact email, so I can't provide a link.
> - The "literal" protocols are not about conversion, they are about
> adopting a certain syntax provided by the language.  "Convertible" in
> the name is a red herring: a type can't be convertible from an integer
> literal because there is no "IntegerLiteral" entity in the type
> system.  The literal *becomes* typed as the corresponding literal type
> (e.g., Int or String), and as far as the user at the call site is
> concerned, there is no visible conversion (even if one is happening
> behind the scenes).
> Our suggestion was to focus on the "adopting the syntax" part.  We
> suggested moving the "literal convertible" protocols into a
> pseudo-namespace "Syntax".  It could be implemented like this:
> protocol _IntegerLiteralSyntax {}
> enum Syntax {
>  typealias IntegerLiteral = _IntegerLiteralSyntax
> }
> And used like this:
> struct Int : Syntax.IntegerLiteral {}
> - For protocols that are representing conversions between types that
> actually exist in the library, there is not enough precedent yet to
> make a general conclusion and standardize a pattern.

I’m not sure I understand… In this example, has “IntegerLiteralConvertible” been renamed to “_IntegerLiteralSyntax”? If not, what’s it’s definition?

- Dave Sweeris

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list