Exactly: I also consider synchronous dispatch a special case not worthy of
sacrificing a better name (`dispatch`) for it. I prefer to have a single
`dispatch` as the main function name. Here is my proposed modified signature
based on the proposal
<https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0088-libdispatch-for-swift3.md>:
class DispatchQueue : DispatchObject {
func dispatch(synchronous: Bool, work: @convention(block) () -> Void)
func dispatch(
group: DispatchGroup? = nil,
qos: DispatchQoS = .unspecified,
flags: DispatchWorkItemFlags = [],
work: @convention(block) () -> Void)
}
queue. dispatch(group: group) {
print("Hello World")
}
queue.dispatch(synchronous: true) {
print("Hello World")
}
In the above synchronous variant, passing synchronous flag as false simply
delegates to async function. This saves us from having to use a name like
dispatchSync().
Actually, I currently have my own wrapper for libdispatch that works in this
way. My wrapper also unifies more of the API under the same `dispatch` function
with more optional parameters. For example, `apply` functions are also handled
with `dispatch` function. It will iterate if `iterations:` optional parameter
is specified and so on. I find it very convenient to use and the resulting code
is very clear and readable.
I know, this goes further than importing the existing API, but concurrency API
has such a profound impact on the overall style and readability of code that it
is worth going even further than what proposal suggests to get a really clear
and readable API.
Hooman
> On May 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> dispatch() and dispatchSync() would be my preference as asynchronous dispatch
> is the point of GCD and synchronous dispatch is a special case and therefore
> I think the visual asymmetry is an advantage.
>
> -Thorsten
>
>
>> Am 12.05.2016 um 20:10 schrieb James Dempsey via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>
>>
>>> On May 11, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Ricardo Parada <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For synchronously and asynchronously how about the adverbs before the verb:
>>>
>>> syncDispatch()
>>> asyncDispatch()
>>
>>
>> I think with the abbreviation ‘sync’ it’s very easy to read ‘sync’ as a verb
>> and dispatch as a noun.
>>
>> i.e. I’m going to sync up with you about our plan
>> i.e. I received a dispatch from headquarters
>>
>> I would be very fine with
>>
>> dispatchAsync() and dispatchSync() as method names.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2016, at 10:50 AM, James Dempsey <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So maybe that will conform to the API naming guideline? Or would the
>>>>> verb have to be in the base name of the func?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems from the guidelines that the intent is for the verb to be in the
>>>> base name of the func, especially since there is another set of guidelines
>>>> for naming function parameters.
>>>>
>>>> In general the other methods in the proposal are verbs (perform(),
>>>> notify(), wait(), cancel(), etc.)
>>>>
>>>> At least for me, not including a verb makes the API read like the sentence
>>>> “The dog quickly”. This wasn’t so bad in the C API, because you could
>>>> read the word ‘dispatch’ as the verb.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the current GDC API, it does seem like dispatching
>>>> synchronously is the rare and special case.
>>>>
>>>> Could there be just a single dispatch() method, with async as a flag with
>>>> a default value of true?
>>>>
>>>> It might be a little ugly because most of the other parameters of the
>>>> proposed asynchronously() method would not apply in the sync case.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On May 11, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Ricardo Parada <[email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacob Bandes-Storch suggested:
>>>>>
>>>>> synchronously(execute work: …)
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe that will conform to the API naming guideline? Or would the
>>>>> verb have to be in the base name of the func?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps:
>>>>>
>>>>> synchronously(dispatch work: …)
>>>>> asynchronously(dispatch work: …)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 11, 2016, at 9:32 AM, James Dempsey via swift-evolution
>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The method names
>>>>>>
>>>>>> synchronously()
>>>>>> asynchronously()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are both adverbs, not noun phrases or verb phrases.
>>>>>> These methods have side effects, so each name should have a verb in it
>>>>>> to make it a verb phrase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since these are the methods where you actually dispatch a block into a
>>>>>> queue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dispatchSynchronously()
>>>>>> dispatchAsynchronously()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> would include the verb in the name of the methods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
