I may yet whip up the results of that conversation into a formal proposal,
but at the moment I'm unsure whether I myself would prefer the result over
the current sizeof().
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 13:50 Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com>
wrote:
> 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> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On May 20, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Chris Lattner <clatt...@apple.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On May 20, 2016, at 7:26 AM, Matthew Johnson <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/
>
>
> Thanks. That’s what I figured. :)
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > -Chris
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
