While I welcome the change and at this point would be happy to accept it under any spelling, I would like to point out that the vendor in this case took about four years to decide on the name they wished to use here. If this was the case for any other platform the decision would have been made unilaterally by the Swift project, and it would be very unwise for them to later come in and argue that this is a misappropriation of their trademark. We have in the past made such decisions whenever Swift is ported to a new platform without vendor involvement.
2 Likes
(Doesn't anyAppleOS sound like it's a build once (per architecture), run on any Apple OS kind of deal? As opposed to someAppleOS.)
1 Like
I think anyAppleOS is much better than appleOS because the latter sounds like a specific OS, whereas the former make it clear that we really mean ”any member of the family of Apple OSes”.
I also think these are pretty good:
appleOSMember
appleOSFamily
But since we use the identifier inside the os ”macro” (what is the correct term? Pragma?) like so:
os(…) I think we can skip the ”OS” part - just like with Windows and Android) - , so perhaps even better:
os(appleFamilyMember)
os(appleFamily)
os(appleMember)
os(vendorApple)
1 Like
This is a parameter in the `@available` annotation. The context should be enough to make it unambiguous.
It does indeed.
Perhaps.. os(apple) then?
os(apple) is ok, but still not different enough vs os(Android) in the sense that the latter is a single specific OS, whereas the former means ”any member of a family of OSes”.
1 Like
cool, finally 
Will SPM also add this?
SwiftPM doesn't have SupportedPlatform.anyAppleOS yet , but I think adding it would be a good idea.
3 Likes