[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0088: Modernize libdispatch for Swift 3 naming conventions

[Patrick Smith]

You could use dispatch(), and name the synchronous method something else? synchronize() or its shortened form sync(), which is a real word, or maybe wait(). (However, there was a beauty in the yin-yang of async/sync in the original API. I would call them terms of art, like map, filter, reduce, etc)


class DispatchQueue : DispatchObject {
    func synchronize(work: @convention(block) () -> Void)

    func dispatch(
        group: DispatchGroup? = nil, 
        qos: DispatchQoS = .unspecified, 
        flags: DispatchWorkItemFlags = [], 
        work: @convention(block) () -> Void)
}

queue.dispatch(group: group) {
    print("Hello World")
}

queue.synchronize {
    print("Hello World")
}


> On 12 May 2016, at 12:50 AM, James Dempsey via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
>> So maybe that will conform to the API naming guideline?  Or would the verb have to be in the base name of the func?
> 
> 
> It seems from the guidelines that the intent is for the verb to be in the base name of the func, especially since there is another set of guidelines for naming function parameters.
> 
> In general the other methods in the proposal are verbs (perform(), notify(), wait(), cancel(), etc.)
> 
> At least for me, not including a verb makes the API read like the sentence “The dog quickly”.  This wasn’t so bad in the C API, because you could read the word ‘dispatch’ as the verb.
> 
> 
> Looking at the current GDC API, it does seem like dispatching synchronously is the rare and special case.
> 
> Could there be just a single dispatch() method, with async as a flag with a default value of true?
> 
> It might be a little ugly because most of the other parameters of the proposed asynchronously() method would not apply in the sync case.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 11, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Ricardo Parada <rparada at mac.com <mailto:rparada at mac.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Jacob Bandes-Storch suggested:
>> 
>> synchronously(execute work: …)
>> 
>> So maybe that will conform to the API naming guideline?  Or would the verb have to be in the base name of the func?
>> 
>> Or perhaps:
>> 
>> synchronously(dispatch work: …)
>> asynchronously(dispatch work: …)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 11, 2016, at 9:32 AM, James Dempsey via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The method names
>>> 
>>> 	synchronously()
>>> 	asynchronously() 
>>> 
>>> are both adverbs, not noun phrases or verb phrases.
>>> These methods have side effects, so each name should have a verb in it to make it a verb phrase.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Since these are the methods where you actually dispatch a block into a queue
>>> 
>>> dispatchSynchronously()
>>> dispatchAsynchronously()
>>> 
>>> would include the verb in the name of the methods.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160512/9a99c8c3/attachment.html>