Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

I've been thinking about the "conversion to some other type from this protocol" case for a while since it often seems to go against the guidance to add a property for this conversion. `Convertible` is always an awkward Protocol to write, in my opinion. Is there a chance that we simplify the the `C

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

>* What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1. Having consistent conventions makes sense to me. I’d prefer `Initializable` to `Creatable` which sounds weird to me, but otherwise sounds great. >* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to >Swift? I think semantic

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:48 AM Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > Hello Swift community, > > The review of "SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for > Conversions" begins now and runs through May 16. The proposal is available > here: > > > https://gi

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

Re: UPDATED APPROACH ## Initializable +1 although the existing -Convertible suffix isn't bad. (ExtendedGraphemeClusterLiteral could also be renamed to CharacterLiteral). ## Representable +1 for the Custom[Debug]StringR

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

+1 for the classification of the protocols to be renamed I completely agree that you can divide the protocols being examined into those categories and I appreciate the effort put in to doing so. -1 for the names chosen == The new Representable is being applied to - CustomStringConvertibl

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

> The review of "SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions" > begins now and runs through May 16. The proposal is available here: > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md > >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

I agree that CustomStringConvertible and CustomDebugStringConvertible are confusing, but in general, ‘Convertible’ and ‘Representable’ as currently used actually make sense to me. Convert means to transform, so it feels natural to me to think of something that is a FooLiteralConvertible as bein

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

> On 11 May 2016, at 01:02, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > Thanks for your feedback. > > To be honest, I'm not a fan of the names you suggest. Erica had a similar > variation using To, From, and ToAndFrom prefixes that I find preferable to > your suggestions if we were to go in this direction.

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

Sent from my iPad On May 10, 2016, at 5:56 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution wrote: >>* What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > +1 for the idea of making the naming consistent > -1 for the actual chosen names > > Even after reading the reasoning behind the choice of those words, i

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1 for the idea of making the naming consistent -1 for the actual chosen names Even after reading the reasoning behind the choice of those words, it took me a time to scratch my head around it. It’s definitely not immediately obvious that Conve

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions

Hello Swift community, The review of "SE-0041: Updating Protocol Naming Conventions for Conversions" begins now and runs through May 16. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md Reviews are an