[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0115: Rename Literal Syntax Protocols

[Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky]

How about Syntax.IntegerLiteralDestination as a name?

That way just as, for example, CustomStringConvertible can be read to mean
“This type can be converted to a string in a custom manner”, we would have
Syntax.IntegerLiteralDestination meaning “This type can be the destination
for a literal integer in syntax.”

That said, I think Syntax.IntegerLiteral is sufficient. “This type can be a
literal integer in syntax.”

Nevin

On Sunday, July 3, 2016, David Sweeris via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>
> > On Jul 2, 2016, at 23:16, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > Change it to "Syntax.ExpressibleByIntegerLiteral" and I'd be onboard but
> > I don't think it would pass the DaveTest despite it being only 2
> characters longer.[1]
>
> Yeah, I agree with "By" instead of "As". It makes it a bit clearer that
> these protocols kinda work backwards, so to speak. That is, if I understand
> things correctly, rather than adding functionality/semantics to the
> conforming type, conforming to a literal protocol adds
> functionality/semantics to the corresponding literal "type" (which we can't
> directly interact with because they don't actually exist within Swift's
> type system).
>
> - Dave Sweeris
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org <javascript:;>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160703/096c81f3/attachment.html>