Is there a way to control the name of the protocol?

[denandreychuk]

For example ability to name it as follow: SomeStructType instead of SomeStructProtocol

[fernandolucheti]

Hi Den, thanks for reaching out about this.

Currently, peer and freestanding macros cannot introduce arbitrary names at the global scope. To ensure consistency and avoid naming conflicts, the generated protocols are suffixed with a pre-determined fixed value. In this case, the suffix "Protocol" was chosen.

It seems like you'd prefer to use "Type" as the suffix instead of "Protocol." I’d like to better understand your perspective on the currently chosen "Protocol" suffix and the proposed "Type" suffix. Could you share more about your reasoning or specific use cases where "Type" would be more appropriate?

There are two potential ways to address this:

1. Evaluate a More Appropriate Suffix: We could consider updating this module to use an alternative suffix. However, this would likely introduce a breaking change for existing users of the module.
2. Creating a Fork: Forking the module and modifying the suffix to "Type" or any other desired value. This would give you full control over the naming convention.

If you'd like, I can guide you through the process of forking and making this change. Let me know how you'd like to proceed!

[fernandolucheti]

Hi Den, thanks for reaching out about this.

Currently, peer and freestanding macros cannot introduce arbitrary names at the global scope. To ensure consistency and avoid naming conflicts, the generated protocols are suffixed with a pre-determined fixed value. In this case, the suffix "Protocol" was chosen.

It seems like you'd prefer to use "Type" as the suffix instead of "Protocol." I’d like to better understand your perspective on the currently chosen "Protocol" suffix and the proposed "Type" suffix. Could you share more about your reasoning or specific use cases where "Type" would be more appropriate?

There are two potential ways to address this:

1. Evaluate a More Appropriate Suffix: We could consider updating this module to use an alternative suffix. However, this would likely introduce a breaking change for existing users of the module.
2. Creating a Fork: Forking the module and modifying the suffix to "Type" or any other desired value. This would give you full control over the naming convention.

If you'd like, I can guide you through the process of forking and making this change. Let me know how you'd like to proceed!

here is some reference to it: https://forums.swift.org/t/update-restrictions-on-arbitrary-names-at-global-scope-in-se-0389-and-se-0397/66289/4

[denandreychuk]

Oh, I see. Thank you for your reply.

"Type" or "Protocol" is probably just a matter of preference. Personally, I usually choose "Type" because it feels more like an abstract thing, indicating something you can use without referring to a specific implementation. "Protocol," on the other hand, highlights more of implementation details that this is protocol.

I'm happy with forking and will leave the final decision to you

As a brainstorm idea:
If we have @Protocol macro. Why we cannot have both: @Protocol and @Type living at the same time and letting the user decide whatever fits the best