I have prepared two alternative sets of doc pages, one replacing
evidence and the other replacing it with
implicit. The start pages for these are here:
In both cases, skip ahead to “The New Design” to get to the links to the individual pages in the group.
My observations so far:
- both designs look OK, overall.
implicitlooks more familiar (no surprise here!)
- On the other hand, it is considerably harder to talk about new style vs old style implicits if the keyword is the same. For instance, this makes it awkward to formulate rules for
- It’s also harder to distinguish old-style and new-style implicits in code, which could become confusing.
evidenceworks better as a noun, but
implicitis also OK, because of widespread existing usage as a noun.
evidenceworks better in conjunction with other nouns. I.e. evidence import, evidence definition, evidence alias is clearer than implicit import, implicit definition, implicit alias.
- In the text, we sometimes have to accommodate for the fact that it is awkward to express plurality of evidences. One can say “the implicits in scope”, but “the evidences in scope” feels off to me, it has to be either “the evidence in scope” in singular or “the evidence values in scope”.
My current feeling is that I prefer either variant slightly over
implicit because it is more familiar and
evidence because it is a bit more precise, and also because it makes it easier to talk about the differences. The deciding question is ultimately wether similarity with existing implicits is an advantage or a handicap.