[swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

[Xiaodi Wu]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>
> on Thu Jun 23 2016, Xiaodi Wu <swift-evolution at swift.org> 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.
>
> No, it has no type until its type is deduced.  No initializer call
> appears in the source.  Supplying the argument to the initializer is
> merely the mechanism by which the compiler constructs the value once the
> type is deduced.
>

Right. Sorry, clearly a brainfart there on my part.


>
> > Maybe we could say that the type gives form to the literal or embodies
> > the literal? Thus maybe a name like `IntegerLiteralEmbodiment` or
> > `IntegerLiteralManifestation`, maybe even `IntegerLiteralModeling`.
>
> The first two names are so esoteric that I can't imagine them being
> anything but
> confusing, and “Modeling” is redundant; everything that conforms to a
> protocol models that protocol.
>
> If we were to add words to the name, I'd go with
>
>    IntegerLiteralExpressible
>

I think that sounds wonderful.


> I *think* I still would want to sink this name into the Syntax
> namespace, though.
>

`Syntax.IntegerLiteralExpressible` absolutely makes sense to me. To me,
this says, the conforming type is integer literal expressible, which falls
under the umbrella of syntax. Somehow, `Syntax.IntegerLiteral` just does
not compute in my head, maybe because instinctively it looks like something
should come after "literal," and using "syntax" to plug that hole doesn't
yield an interpretable name.


>
> >> >> Also, why an enum? Especially one without any cases...
> >> >
> >> > It is not possible to create an instance of an enum that does not have
> >> > cases.  It becomes essentially a namespace.
> >>
> >> Oh that's a clever work-around. I like it :-)
> >>
> >> - Dave Sweeris
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
> --
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160627/ac6becb6/attachment.html>