[swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0041 Names

[Erica Sadun]

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:46 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrahams at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> on Mon Jun 27 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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* I still would want to sink this name into the Syntax
>>> namespace, though.
>> 
>> You didn't respond to my earlier suggestion so I'd like to pitch it again.
>> 
>> What about "Syntax.IntegerLiteralConsumer", which suggests that
>> conforming types can consume integer literal syntax as native to their
>> type.
> 
> To me, the idea of a type (other than, say, a parser) consuming syntax
> is pretty alien.  So this one is sorta esoteric too, IMO.
> 
> -- 
> Dave

It may be sorta esoteric, but I'd say it's a fair degree clearer to the intended
audience of Swift developers.

I ran a one-question poll last night about "Syntax.IntegerLiteralExpressible".
I asked what Swift developers (who were not following this discussion) thought it
meant.

The results can be found here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-FGMC93JT/ <https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-FGMC93JT/>
A tab at the top lets you view individual answers paired with explanations.

By a margin of at least like 9:1 (more if you include the freeform answers of "why" such as
answer 80, which says "It reminds me of StringLiteralExpressible which behaves that way.
But you're right, the name sounds like the other option.") developers thought that the 
protocol meant (or should mean) that the conforming type could express itself as an integer 
literal, and not that an integer literal can be expressed as the conforming type.

I encourage you to look at the individual responses. They include the freeform answers
that describe why each person chose as they did.

-- E

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160628/8eff0dee/attachment.html>