[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0088: Modernize libdispatch for Swift 3 naming conventions
hello at andersio.co
Wed May 11 01:33:22 CDT 2016
1. What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1 on the proposal’s objective - the swiftification of libdispatch is greatly appreciated. But I have reservation in the particulars of the proposal which are not in line with the API Design Guidelines.
For example, the `getSpecific(_:)` instance method in `DispatchQueue` is supposed to have no side effect like `NSObject.value(_:)` - just the retrieval of the value. But it somehow has a `get` suffix in the method name. Likewise, the class function `getSpecific(_:)` has a similar issue, but also not describing the behaviour precisely enough. Shouldn’t it be something like`specificForCurrentQueue(_:)`?
On the other hand, The adverbs used by `synchronously(_:)` and `asynchornously(_:)` in `DispatchQueue` fits nowhere in the guidelines, which (generally speaking) requires either imperative verb for functions having side-effects, or nouns for whatever else. Both functions clearly have a side effect on the queue, be it performing atomics or appending a block. IMO these should be verbs describing the behaviour, like `sync`, `synchronize`, `perform`, `performAndWait`, `schedule` or `run`.
queue.synchronously(block) // Is this grammatical? :-[
One may argue these adverbs are term of arts, but then why not simply use the short form (`async` and `sync`) from the C API, which is less verbose and could even possibly be implied as imperative verbs? Say `async` and `sync` as a shorthand of `asynchronize` * and `synchronise`.
* this doesn’t formally exist… yet.
2. Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
Yes. It should improve the experience of Swift developers, since libdispatch is heavily used in the Cocoa platforms. Autocompletion would have less noise, and the interface is cleaner to work with.
3. Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
4. If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
There are a few wrappers on GitHub that serves a similar purpose. But it is always great to have less dependency, especially for things that are essential like libdispatch.
5. How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
A focused study on the `DispatchQueue` renaming, since it would be the thing affecting me the most.
> On 11 May 2016, at 12:39 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> Hello Swift community,
> The review of "SE-0088: Modernize libdispatch for Swift 3 naming conventions" begins now and runs through May 17. The proposal is available here:
> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.
> What goes into a review?
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and contribute to the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
> * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
> Thank you,
> -Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution