We identified three categories:
* A protocol for types that can be initialized from specific types or protocols, e.g. created/initialized with strings (a specific type) or created/initialized with floating point numbers (conforming to a protocol). Current examples include "IntegerLiteralConvertible".
* A protocol for types that can form a representation which may or may not provide a complete projection (the original may not be recoverable from that representation), e.g. "CustomStringConvertible" and "CustomPlaygroundQuickLookable" both fall into this.
* A protocol for isomorphism: can be converted to and from a type, e.g. "RawRepresentable"
This is really the last chance to rationalize this across the language and to evaluate whether other protocol groups should have a core scheme for naming.
p.s. AbsoluteValuable, AnyCollectionProtocol, AnyObject, ArrayLiteralConvertible, BidirectionalCollection, Collection, BidirectionalIndexable, BinaryFloatingPoint, FloatLiteralConvertible, BitwiseOperations, Boolean, BooleanLiteralConvertible, CVarArg, Collection, Sequence, Comparable, CustomDebugStringConvertible, CustomLeafReflectable, CustomPlaygroundQuickLookable, CustomReflectable, CustomStringConvertible, DictionaryLiteralConvertible, Equatable, ErrorProtocol, ExtendedGraphemeClusterLiteralConvertible, FloatLiteralConvertible, FloatingPoint, IntegerLiteralConvertible, SignedNumber, AbsoluteValuable, Strideable, Hashable, Indexable, IndexableBase, Integer : _Integer, Strideable, IntegerArithmetic : _IntegerArithmetic, Comparable, IntegerLiteralConvertible, IteratorProtocol, LazyCollectionProtocol, LazySequenceProtocol, LazySequenceProtocol, MirrorPath, MutableCollection, Collection, MutableIndexable, NilLiteralConvertible, OptionSet, RawRepresentable, OutputStream, RandomAccessCollection, BidirectionalCollection, RandomAccessIndexable, RangeReplaceableCollection, Collection, RangeReplaceableIndexable, RawRepresentable, Sequence, SetAlgebra, ArrayLiteralConvertible, SignedInteger : _SignedInteger, Integer, SignedNumber, IntegerLiteralConvertible, Streamable, Strideable, StringInterpolationConvertible, StringLiteralConvertible, UnicodeCodec, UnicodeScalarLiteralConvertible, UnsignedInteger : _DisallowMixedSignArithmetic, Integer, _DisallowMixedSignArithmetic : _Integer, _Incrementable, _Integer, CustomStringConvertible, Hashable, IntegerArithmetic, BitwiseOperations, _Incrementable, _IntegerArithmetic, _SequenceWrapper, _SignedInteger : _Integer, SignedNumber
On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Matthew Johnson <email@example.com> wrote:
On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:59 AM, John McCall <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
Rationalizing base conversion protocol names. I personally don't have the heart to try to re-address the "LiteralConvertible" protocol naming thing again but this would be the last chance to do anything about getting this issue addressed.
Given the vast amount of bike shedding that has already happened around this topic, I don’t think there is a solution that everyone will be happy with. It is also unclear (to me at least) what solution might be acceptable to the core team.
To be clear, I don't care about the name. If you want to rename IntegerLiteralConvertible to IntegerLiteral or whatever, I won't drag the conversation into the muck again. It's the design of the requirements that I'm pretty opposed to revisiting.
This is orthogonal to the discussion that happened in your thread, definitely no discussion of any changes to the requirements.
We are discussing this proposal: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md and specifically the use of the `Convertible` suffix for both the `*LiteralConvertible` protocols and the `Custom(Debug)StringConvertible` protocols where the conversion runs in opposite directions.
The core team decision was:
"The feedback on the proposal was generally positive about the idea of renaming these protocols, but the specific names in the proposal are not well received, and there is no apparent confluence in the community on better names. The core team prefers discussion to continue -- if/when there is a strong proposal for a better naming approach, we can reconsider renaming these."