on Sat Apr 16 2016, Patrick Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, I agree. I think in the guidelines should be a recommendation for > mutating methods are preferred, when nonmutating are preferred, and > when to have both. It would be interesting to see such a guideline. OK, off the cuff: Having a nonmutating method available often means you can make more use of let bindings and method chaining, so when you have a choice and it suits a use case you can imagine, at least write a nonmutating method. In addition, you may want a mutating form of a method when you'd otherwise have to return a new instance of a heavyweight type. > If performance is a key goal of Swift, so much that it influences API > design, then some details should be part of the guidelines also. > > Patrick > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 3:56 AM -0700, "David Rönnqvist" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > By “the big three”, are you referring to only the naming of map, filter, > and > reduce? > > I would also like to see a formal proposal along these lines, and possibly > more. > > I also feel that the `inPlace` suffix was very clear (most important) and > very much liked that it made the immutable version the default (less > important). It manages to describe the distinction between `union`/ > `unionInPlace` and `sort`/`sortInPlace` in the name itself. To me, the > `ed`/ > `ing` difference is much more subtle and favors people who are familiar > with > English grammar. One can argue that `sort` is both imperative and > functional, and that because of [either side] the default should be > [mutable/immutable]. Both arguments are valid. > > - David > > On 15 Apr 2016, at 18:31, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Антон Жилин via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've already expressed these concerns, but nobody noticed, > apparently. Here is it: > > I think current -ed/-ing convention is ugly. It breaks syntactic > correctness, experience from other languages, mathematical > notation > and functional idioms. > > `InPlace` suffix was so far more correct in these terms. We can > make > anything a convention, but should we? > I liked the proposal about new naming conventions, but overlooked > this change. > > Many people will agree with me. This still can be reviewed until > Swift 3. > If so, I will create a proposal to correct "the big three" in > this. > > What do you think? > > I would like to see a formal proposal along these lines. My other > suggestions are here. > > -- E > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
