[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0006 Apply API Guidelines to the Standard Library

[Dave Abrahams]

on Sun Jan 31 2016, Erica Sadun <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>> Canonical Dave:
>>> Me:
>>>  - use nouns for unambiguously functional items without side effects (distanceTo(), successor)
>>>  - use verbs for unambiguously procedural items
>> 
>> This works great so far.  I think you can say
>> 
>>  - use nouns for methods with no side effects (or only incidental ones,
>>    like logging)
>>  - use verbs for methods with significant side-effects
>> 
>> and you can stop there.  Why does this have to be more complicated than
>> that?
>> 
>
> Because *someone* put mutating/nonmutating rules into the
> guidelines. 

Okay, guilty as charged already! :-)

> And I'm OCD enough that they are irritating me. It's the
> mutating/nonmutating bits that I perceive as unneeded hungarianisms
> that push a little too far into detailed advice by tying method naming
> to overly specific fancy rules. (Insert a joke here about fancy cats
> and fussy linguistic grooming.)

I'm saying, why don't we replace the mutating/nonmutating stuff with
what I wrote above, and stop there?  Doesn't that fix the problem?

>>> One final point: I think the -ed/-ing advice is wrong. Adding "ed"
>>> isn't really creating a past tense verb (reversed). 
>> 
>> No, it's creating the past participle.  We had this checked by a
>> linguist :-).
>
> This is why I love you guys.

A benefit of working in a large company: an expert in <whatever> will
pop out of the woodwork to correct your mistakes.

-- 
-Dave