[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0006 Apply API Guidelines to the Standard Library
Erica Sadun
erica at ericasadun.com
Fri Jan 29 14:29:54 CST 2016
The "too specific" I'm railing against is that naming guidance should not depend on implementation details to
the point it creates Hungarian Swiftisms.
-- E
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrahams at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> on Fri Jan 29 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote:
>
>>>> For example, for "HasNoun", I'd go with something more like
>>>> NounContainingType or NounSupplier.
>>>>
>>>> Non-Abrahams Dave writes: "I like -Type for protocols that can only be
>>>> used a generic constraint, and -able/-ible for protocols that can be
>>>> “concrete” types.
>>>>
>>>> And Canonical Dave replies: "But that's not how they're used. I'd
>>>> have to rename Equatable and Comparable to follow that convention."
>>>>
>>
>> This is the big bit though and you didn't respond here, although it's
>> mostly that I'm agreeing with you but what do you think about just
>> cutting out things that get too specific? (I say the same more or less
>> in the longer review email)
>
> I don't think that's going to fly. One of the main purposes of these
> API guidelines is to remove the overhead of having to figure out how to
> name things, at least as much as possible. Programmers and designers
> have enough to think about. Teams that accept strong and specific
> coding guidelines can spend more time effectively applying their domain
> expertise and less time bike-shedding trivial details.
>
> --
> -Dave
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list