I like how your suggestion reads. It will namespace all literal convertibles while also reading more clearly on what conforming to the protocol implies. I now understand the intent of the Syntax namespace however I think you suggested naming would be better.
-Shawn On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:26 PM David Sweeris via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 19:35, Dmitri Gribenko <griboz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> > wrote: > >> That's a really interesting idea. Is "Syntax" a placeholder, or is that > the intended name? > > > > It is the best name we could come up with, we are open to better > suggestions. > > I guess it depends on the intended semantics of the "namespace". If the > purpose is to be a container for the various LiteralConvertible protocols, > then maybe something like `AcceptsLiteralType.Integer` might be better? > It's a bit wordy, though. > > > >> Also, why an enum? Especially one without any cases... > > > > It is not possible to create an instance of an enum that does not have > > cases. It becomes essentially a namespace. > > Oh that's a clever work-around. I like it :-) > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > 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
