Sent from my iPad
On May 17, 2016, at 11:32 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <br...@architechies.com> wrote: >> UPDATED APPROACH >> >> Our updated approach focuses on the two most important conventions: one for >> initialization and one for representation. >> >> 1. `Initializable` >> >> `Initializable` designates protocols that convert *from* a type or from an >> associated type mentioned in the protocol name, such as the current >> `<Type>LiteralConvertible` protocols. This convention would include member >> requirements for initializers, factory methods, and any other way an >> instance can be imported to establish a new instance of the conforming type. >> >> For example, conforming to `ArrayLiteralInitializable` would allow a set to >> be created with `Set(arrayLiteral: <some array>)` and `var set: Set<T> = []`. >> >> This phrase replaces the `Creatable` form from our original proposal. >> >> 2. `Representable` >> >> `Representable` designates protocols whose primary purpose is to project >> *to* a type or associated type mentioned in the protocol name. Items in the >> standard library that would be subsumed into this naming include >> `CustomStringConvertible`, `CustomDebugStringConvertible`, and >> `RawRepresentable`, which we imagine would become >> `CustomStringRepresentable`, `CustomDebugStringRepresentable`, and (as >> current) `RawRepresentable`. >> >> This second category groups together the `Convertible` and `Representable` >> categories from our original proposal and is predicated on the feedback from >> the design team review. The `Representable` designation does not promise >> bidirectional conversion although some `Representable` protocols may include >> requirements to allow attempted initialization *from* the type of the >> representation. Doing so falls outside the naming contract we are proposing. > > If we're doing this, I wonder if category 1 shouldn't just be `Convertible`. > This would preserve our `LiteralConvertible` protocols with the same names > (which, consistency issues aside, seem perfectly cromulent), while shifting > the `StringConvertible` protocols over to the `Representable` category. Do you really think 'Convertible' is more clear than 'Initializable'? > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
