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

[Radosław Pietruszewski]

> On 02 Feb 2016, at 02:41, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> on Mon Feb 01 2016, Janosch Hildebrand <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
>> I'm generally in favor of the proposed changes. I'll just note some
>> minor points and disagreements:
>> 
>> * Like I mentioned in my SE-0023 review, I would be OK with keeping
>> the "Type" suffix for protocols but have no strong preference.
>> 
>> * I'm in favor of keeping `precondition()`. `require()` might be
>> easier to grasp at first but personally I really came to like
>> `precondition()`.
>> It fells both precise and I prefer the passive `precondition()` to the
>> active `require()` for this case. To me it fits the primary meaning
>> better; stating an API contract. The fact that the condition is
>> actively checked is secondary to that.
>> 
>> * I also agree with Radosław in that I prefer `removeAll(keepCapacity:
>> Bool)` to `removeAll(keepingCapacity: Bool)`.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I had a hard time justifying "keeping" to myself for a while, but
> eventually I realized that this pattern is less ambiguous, at least in
> general, since many verbs are also nouns.  Okay, "keeps" haven't been
> considered high-tech construction elements since the middle ages, but
> it's easy to understand how you'd be interested in the capacity of a
> keep.

Why not, though? adding `-ing`s in this context has all of the problems -ed/-ing has with method names, and none of the necessity of conveying mutability information.

What’s wrong with “keepCapacity” as a parameter name?

> 
>> * What is the rationale for moving `unsafeUnwrap` into Optional but
>> not `unsafeAddressOf` into AnyObject? 
> 
> Language limitation: AnyObject can't be modified or extended.
> 
>> I can certainly see the safety argument against moving it but I don't
>> see how that would apply to `unsafeAddressOf` but not `unsafeUnwrap`?
>> 
>> * `EnumeratedSequence` and `Repeated` feel weird to me. They make
>> sense given the API guidelines and the previous `EnumerateSequence`
>> and `Repeat` were a bit clunky as well but these somehow feel a bit
>> worse... That might be wholly subjective though and I don't really
>> have a good suggestion. The only thing that came to mind was
>> `EnumerationSequence` and `Repetition` but I'm not overly fond of
>> those either especially not to the point of deviating from the norm...
> 
> Yes, they're a little clunky.  No, I don't have any better ideas either
> :-)
> 
>> * This is not a disagreement but I'd be interested in hearing the
>> reasons for replacing Generator(Type) with Iterator(Protocol) if
>> someone finds the time. I can speculate of course but it's probably
>> easier for someone to give me a short summary :-)
> 
> I think these messages give all the details:
> 
> http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=m2h9i4gffx.fsf%40eno.apple.com
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/5344
> 
>> * Typo: 
>>> +  public func take() -> Memory // Should be Pointee
> 
> Nice, thanks.
> 
> -- 
> -Dave
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution