On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 20:59 Erica Sadun via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
The great advantage of basic renaming is that migration is super-simple.
And now that I think about it, CustomStringRepresentable is probably a
lot better than CustomStringRepresentationExpressible
It's easy enough to take some time, throw some options out there, and come
up with names that better represent the concepts in question (the big win
of your proposal) and then vote for the best.
-- E
p.s. Does anyone ever actually use debugString stuff? I love it in concept
but I find that I use it about 0% of the time
On Dec 15, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Matthew Johnson <matthew@anandabits.com> > wrote:
Thanks for your input Erica! I would be happy with any convention that
establishes clarity and consistency.
I wrote the proposal the way I did as it is the minimum change from
current state that would establish clarity and consistency. My rationale
was the smaller the change, the greater the chance of acceptance.
It would be great to hear whether the community would prefer minimal
change or wants to make a larger change if a better end result is possible
that way.
Matthew
On Dec 15, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
And adding:
I *hate* Convertible in its current form. Per your current write-up, the
protocols should cover initialized from, converted to, and a mix. Let me
suggest:
* can be initialized from: Instantiable, Initializable
* can be converted to: Expressible, Presentable, Projectable
* can be represented as and instantiated by: Convertible
For example, IntegerLiteralInitializable,
CustomStringRepresentationExpressible, and DoubleTypeConvertible.
-- Erica
On Dec 15, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Bumping this thread. There wasn’t much response to the initial post,
which may have been because Saturday night is probably not the best time to
post a proposal. :)
You can find the draft here:
https://github.com/anandabits/swift-evolution/blob/conversion-protocol-conventions/proposals/0000-conversion-protocol-conventions.md
The little feedback I did receive was positive.
Matthew
On Dec 12, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
I have drafted a proposal to establish precise conventional meaning for
the use of `Convertible`, `Representable`, and `Projectable` protocol
suffixes. The proposal would require renaming `CustomStringConvertible`
and `CustomDebugStringConvertible` to `CustomStringProjectable`
and `CustomDebugStringProjectable` respectively
I am seeking input on the proposal before submitting a PR. The full draft
can found at
https://github.com/anandabits/swift-evolution/blob/conversion-protocol-conventions/proposals/0000-conversion-protocol-conventions.md
.
Thanks,
Matthew
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
