[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0059: Update API Naming Guidelines and Rewrite Set APIs Accordingly
dgregor at apple.com
Mon Apr 4 12:09:04 CDT 2016
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 9:20 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, "emplace" looks like more or less a synonym for "install." I
> don't think it suggests that the object is being put in place of the
It’s roughly a synonym. “emplaceUnion” is "putting the union into position". There is no other position than “self”.
> The latest example in the Oxford English Dictionary, from
> 2010, is:
> "Insurgents would hastily emplace victim-activated IEDs...after
> Pathfinder came through."
> Here, the IEDs are not taking the place of the insurgents.
I was going to comment about your choice of a terrorism-related example sentence, but the online OED *only* uses war-related examples for this verb.
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Shawn Erickson <shawnce at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:27 PM Shawn Erickson <shawnce at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 6:41 AM Michel Fortin via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>>> I don't like "form" as a prefix. To me there is no difference between
>>>> `union` and `formUnion`: both sounds functional-style, and actually the
>>>> second one perhaps a bit more to my ears. There's basically two dictionary
>>>> definitions of "form":
>>>> 1. "bring together parts or combine to create (something)" which to me
>>>> implies a new value is created, and
>>>> 2. "make or fashion into a certain shape or form" which would imply that
>>>> the material you start with is transformed, which is apparently the intended
>>>> meaning and also the reverse meaning from the above.
>>>> I mean, doesn't this make sense as an API?
>>>> let donut = baker.formDonut(dough) // non-mutating
>>>> Perhaps instead of "form" we could use "become" as a prefix when the
>>>> operation is naturally described by a noun. That would seem less ambiguous
>>>> to me:
>>>> It's a bit passive, but I find it fits well when the operation is a noun.
>>>> And there's no way the term lends itself to non-mutating cases without
>>>> things becoming nonsensical:
>>>> let donut = baker.becomeDonut(dough) // non-mutating?
>>> I also am having difficulty coming to terms with the use of "form" (I am a
>>> native English speaker). As you note "form" can imply the creation of
>>> something from parts (more like assembling a new thing) as well as the
>>> creation of something out of a material say a of block clay (more like
>>> molding something out of an existing thing). It doesn't seem clear cut to me
>>> to imply in place mutation.
>>> Additionally my eyes / brain keep seeing "from" instead of "form". This
>>> type of issue is generally true with any short word made up of the same set
>>> of letters (made worse since "from" is more common in programming then
>>> "form"). The mind quickly narrows in on a set of possible words given the
>>> letters we see and then uses context to help get the correct one and/or
>>> additional visual parsing to understand the exact ordering of letters (more
>>> energy expended). Anyway since I keep seeing "from" instead of "form" I keep
>>> going in the direction of thinking it returns something made from the two
>>> (or more) items involved (not really sure why "from" goes that direction in
>>> my head, it could also go the in place direction).
>>> I would prefer something other then "form" (note I just typed "from" by
>>> mistake)... I think your suggestion of "become" has merit.
>>> y.becomeUnion(x) --reads to me as--> "y become union with x"
>>> y.formUnion(x) --read to me as--> "y from oops... y forming a union of x"
>>> y.becomeIntersection(x) --reads to me as--> "y become intersection with x"
>>> y.formIntersection(x) --read to me as--> "y from oops... y forming an
>>> intersection with x"
>> After stepping away for a bit and looking at it from the POV of the API of
>> Set and not in the context of "y" I could read things in the abstract as...
>> "becomeUnion(with other:Self)" --> "I become a union with other"
>> "formUnion(with other:Self)" --> "I form a union with other"
>> No clear winner to me however when used in code "become" still feels more
>> strongly mutating then "form": y.formUnion(with:x) or y.becomeUnion(with:x)
>> All in all the API would have mutating in front of it (at least for structs)
>> and it wouldn't have a return type. It would become clear fairly quickly as
>> a result (hence learned).
>> Just still not that happy with "form" but with use my mind would likely
>> quickly adapt.
>> I think the best English verb for this construction is “emplace”:
>> It means “to put in position”, and is always used with an object (the noun).
>> It’s basically free from incorrect connotations because it’s obscure enough
>> that most English speakers won’t know it, and is easily searchable for
>> English- and non-English speakers alike.
>> - Doug
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution