[Swift-devel] 'mapped type' terminology

[Mihael Hategan]

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 14:31 +0000, Ben Clifford wrote:
> >From hpdc draft:
> 
> > Types in Swift can be atomic or composite. An atomic type can be either 
> > a primitive type or a mapped type.
> 
> The phrasing of this kinda excludes the idea that composite types might be 
> mapped, which is not true at all...

"Mapped type" was not meant to be the same as "declaration with mapper".
By virtue of that fact that composite types can be made of atomic types,
composite types can contain mapped types. The mapping itself, and the
fact that for a composite type it's specified for the whole declaration,
not for individual fields, does not make a type "mapped" or "not
mapped".

In any event, we need a term to describe types that are atomic but not
in-memory.

> 
> The atomic types that are mapped to single files are what I initially 
> called marker types; a better term was sought for that but 'mapped type' 
> is not it in my opinion - being a mapped type or not is orthogonal to the 
> atomic/composite distinction.
>