[swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

[Dave Abrahams]

on Thu Jun 23 2016, Xiaodi Wu <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Dmitri Gribenko
> <gribozavr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Xiaodi Wu
>> <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:26 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution
>> > <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitri Gribenko
>> >> > <gribozavr at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Sweeris
>> >> >> <davesweeris at mac.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> That's a really interesting idea. Is "Syntax" a placeholder, or is
>> that
>> >> >> the intended name?
>> >> >
>> >> > It is the best name we could come up with, we are open to better
>> >> > suggestions.
>> >>
>> >> I guess it depends on the intended semantics of the "namespace". If the
>> >> purpose is to be a container for the various LiteralConvertible
>> protocols,
>> >> then maybe something like `AcceptsLiteralType.Integer` might be better?
>> It's
>> >> a bit wordy, though.
>> >
>> >
>> > I get what's being aimed at here, but I think the meaning of
>> > `Syntax` in this context is indecipherable. IIUC, the point to be
>> > conveyed by the term is that a literal has no type until it is
>> > supplied as an argument to the initializer and becomes typed.
>>
>> The point of using "Syntax" is to emphasize that this protocol is for
>> integration with the language syntax.  The "Syntax" pseudo-namespace
>> groups protocols that provide a special kind of a capability --
>> changing the meaning of builtin language syntax.  This protocol is not
>> meant to be coded against, used in other APIs or handled by the code
>> in any other way except by being adopted (except maybe in the standard
>> library code itself).
>>
>
> This makes a lot of sense now after your expanded explanation. I still
> think, though, that the name reads rather absurdly. Most charitably, your
> types would conform to "integer literal syntax," whatever that means.
> Visually, it looks like your types "conform to Syntax." 


I dunno, this kind of construct is precedented.  Nobody thinks

    class MyDelegate : Foundation.SomeDelegate { ... }

makes it look like MyController conforms to Foundation.

> Could I suggest maybe `SyntacticIntegration` or `SyntaxIntegrating`?
> Something along those lines.

Doesn't that just use complex words where a simpler one would do?  I
don't understand how that helps.



-- 
-Dave