[swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Literal Syntax Protocols
adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com
Fri Jul 1 03:08:14 CDT 2016
We haven’t pass the dave test yet? :D
Still curious what he’d say about Syntax.Literal.*Protocol
One more question:
What can the namespace Syntax could be used for except for literals, any idea? (I have no clue.)
Sent with Airmail
Am 30. Juni 2016 um 03:30:15, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org) schrieb:
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <brent at architechies.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> `Syntax.IntegerLiteralType` is another that popped into my mind this morning. I don’t recall if that has been mentioned yet. The idea here is that an integer literal *can be typed as* a type that conforms to this protocol (the type suffix *is not* used in the sense that it used to be used in things like `SequenceType` which had the semantic that conforming types *are* sequences).
> Throwing my hat in:
> IntegerLiteralCandidate (with or without a Syntax. prefix)
> As in, when you see an integer literal and need to infer its actual type, this type is a candidate.
For everyone who is bike shedding here - feel free to continue informally. However, I don’t plan to incorporate every alternative from the bikeshed into the alternatives section unless folks feel it is critical to do so. I would prefer that everyone save their personal favorite(s) for the review period and continue the bike shedding at that time.
The proposal already suggests the core team consider modifying the names based on bike shedding during review. I hope that will be sufficient.
> Brent Royal-Gordon
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution