[swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

[Dave Abrahams]

on Wed Jun 22 2016, David Sweeris <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>> 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”?

Yes, that's the idea.

-- 
Dave