on Tue Jun 28 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:46 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrah...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> on Mon Jun 27 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote: >> > >>>> 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. >> >> To me, the idea of a type (other than, say, a parser) consuming syntax >> is pretty alien. So this one is sorta esoteric too, IMO. >> >> -- >> Dave > > It may be sorta esoteric, but I'd say it's a fair degree clearer to the > intended > audience of Swift developers. > > I ran a one-question poll last night about "Syntax.IntegerLiteralExpressible". > I asked what Swift developers (who were not following this discussion) > thought it > meant. > > The results can be found here: > https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-FGMC93JT/ > <https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-FGMC93JT/> > A tab at the top lets you view individual answers paired with explanations. > > By a margin of at least like 9:1 (more if you include the freeform answers of > "why" such as > answer 80, which says "It reminds me of StringLiteralExpressible which > behaves that way. > But you're right, the name sounds like the other option.") developers thought > that the > protocol meant (or should mean) that the conforming type could express itself > as an integer > literal, and not that an integer literal can be expressed as the > conforming type.
Which is exactly the right sense. Well, the only correct-ish option you gave people is slightly awkward and inaccurate—I'd have said “Instances of the conforming type can be expressed as integer literals,” but that matches the 90% meaning almost exactly; certainly much better than the 10%. As far as I can tell, your poll supports my suggestion. > I encourage you to look at the individual responses. They include the > freeform answers that describe why each person chose as they did. -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution