> On May 20, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > > > On May 20, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Chris Lattner <clatt...@apple.com > > <mailto:clatt...@apple.com>> wrote: > > > > On May 20, 2016, at 7:26 AM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com > > <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>> wrote: > >>> (For instance, a perhaps controversial opinion: I think `dynamicType` is > >>> properly capitalized for the syntactic slot it's in. That's not to say I > >>> think we should *keep* `dynamicType`, but simply that `foo.dynamicType` > >>> is more appropriate than `foo.dynamictype` would be.) > >> > >> +1. 'foo.dynamictype' seems strange to me. > > > > foo.dynamicType is broken for other reasons. I see x.dynamicType as being > > a named operator (like sizeof) and not a property. For example, we don’t > > want .dynamicType to show up in code completion on every value in the > > universe ("4.dynamicType”, really?). > > > > That argues that it should be spelled as dynamicType(x), and ideally being > > a standard library feature instead of a keyword. > > That makes sense. It never crossed my mind until now, but given that > `sizeof` is a standard library feature why isn’t it camel case `sizeOf`? Is > this a case of “term of the art”? > > See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/15830/ > <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/15830/> Thanks. That’s what I figured. :)
> > > > > > -Chris > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
