[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