>> 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'?
I don't think `Convertible` is clearer than `Initializable`, but I think it rolls off the tongue better, is easier to spell, is more compatible with non-initializer implementations, and in general wins on a lot of squishy, subjective, hard-to-define axes. Subjectively, I've noticed that a lot of people *don't* think of things like `Double(myFloat)` as being initializers; they think of them as conversions. To those people, `Convertible` is probably the right name. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
