[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Improve the API Design Guidelines about protocol naming

[Gwendal Roué]

Well, IteratorProtocol, LazySequenceProtocol weren't imported from ObjC.

They set a precedent for the -Protocol suffix.

Now, even if you don't like RangeProtocol, this doesn't make RangeExpression better.

"Expression" and `1...` don't belong to the same level of the language: one is a concept of that belongs to the compiler, when the other is a plain value used in a program:

When a program does `1 + 2`, it both sums two integers, and builds a expression from two other expressions and an operator. Both are true. Yet 1 is of type `Integer`, not `IntegerExpression`.

Currently all types of the standard library belong the program realm, not to the compiler realm. I wish we wouldn't break this practice, and avoid `RangeExpression`.

That's why I suggest `RangeProtocol`. Other options could be `Ranging`, `Bounds`...

Gwendal Roué


> Le 19 avr. 2017 à 23:35, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> a écrit :
> 
> That was probably about the ObjC importer, which does this (appends "Protocol") when there's a class and protocol with the same name in the same module. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to put in the API guidelines, though.
> 
> Jordan
> 
> 
>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 10:59, Gmail via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I seem to recall that something (maybe a WWDC session) mentioned something about protocols that in essence represent a single type would have the Protocol-suffix. 
>> 
>> Unfortunately I couldn’t find it (yet?). The closest I’ve found so far is http://asciiwwdc.com/2014/sessions/407 but I’m not sure that was it.
>> > essentially when there's a conflict between a class name and a protocol name, we'll append protocol to the name of the protocol.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>>>> On 19 Apr 2017, at 17:55, Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Le 19 avr. 2017 à 17:23, Gwendal Roué <gwendal.roue at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0172: One-sided Ranges
>>>> 
>>>> "RangeExpression" is an unexpected name. I was expecting "RangeProtocol", as in IteratorProtocol and LazySequenceProtocol. We need a consistent suffix for protocols that can't be named in -able,  -ible, or named with a simple noun because the noun is already used by a concrete type. "-Protocol" should be that prefix: RangeProtocol.
>>> 
>>> A detailed look at API Design Guidelines [1] shows that this subject is not addressed:
>>> 
>>>> 	• Protocols that describe what something is should read as nouns (e.g. `Collection`).
>>>> 	• Protocols that describe a capability should be named using the suffixes `able`, `ible`, or `ing` (e.g. `Equatable`, `ProgressReporting`).
>>> 
>>> Nothing is said for "protocols that describe what something but can't be named as nouns", or "protocols that describe a capability but can't be named using the suffixes able, ible, or ing".
>>> 
>>> For example: the name of the protocol for all ranges discussed with SE-0172 should be addressed by the first rule (because the protocol describes what something is rather than a capability). But that protocol can't be named Range because Range is already taken.
>>> 
>>> Such a situation comes rather easily:
>>> 
>>> - in an evolving code base, when a protocol is added on top of an existing type hierarchy which should be preserved (RangeProtocol added on top of Range, ClosedRange, etc.)
>>> - at the birth of a code base, when a protocol coexists with a concrete type which rightfully deserves the noun claimed by the protocol.
>>> 
>>> IteratorProtocol and LazySequenceProtocol have set a precedent: maybe we should have the API Design Guidelines evolve with a third rule:
>>> 
>>> + When a protocol can't be named with a noun, or with an `able`, `ible`, or `ing` suffix, the protocol should be named using the suffix `Protocol` (e.g. `IteratorProtocol`).
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> Gwendal Roué
>>> [1] https://swift.org/documentation/api-design-guidelines/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170420/70a376af/attachment.html>