> On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> Maybe we could say that the type gives form to the literal or embodies >> the literal? Thus maybe a name like `IntegerLiteralEmbodiment` or >> `IntegerLiteralManifestation`, maybe even `IntegerLiteralModeling`. > > The first two names are so esoteric that I can't imagine them being anything > but > confusing, and “Modeling” is redundant; everything that conforms to a > protocol models that protocol. > > If we were to add words to the name, I'd go with > > IntegerLiteralExpressible > > I *think* I still would want to sink this name into the Syntax > namespace, though.
You didn't respond to my earlier suggestion so I'd like to pitch it again. What about "Syntax.IntegerLiteralConsumer", which suggests that conforming types can consume integer literal syntax as native to their type. -- E
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
