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

[Jacob Bandes-Storch]

This would defeat @noescape and any generic return type we might want to
add to dispatchSync.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:52 AM Hooman Mehr via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>
> Exactly: I also consider synchronous dispatch a special case not worthy of
> sacrificing a better name (`dispatch`) for it. I prefer to have a single
> `dispatch` as the main function name. Here is my proposed modified
> signature based on the proposal
> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0088-libdispatch-for-swift3.md>
> :
>
> class DispatchQueue : DispatchObject {
>     func dispatch(synchronous: Bool, 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.dispatch(synchronous: true) {
>     print("Hello World")
> }
>
>
> In the above synchronous variant, passing synchronous flag as false simply
> delegates to async function. This saves us from having to use a name like
> dispatchSync().
>
> Actually, I currently have my own wrapper for libdispatch that works in
> this way. My wrapper also unifies more of the API under the same `dispatch`
> function with more optional parameters. For example, `apply` functions are
> also handled with `dispatch` function. It will iterate if `iterations:`
> optional parameter is specified and so on. I find it very convenient to use
> and the resulting code is very clear and readable.
>
> I know, this goes further than importing the existing API, but concurrency
> API has such a profound impact on the overall style and readability of code
> that it is worth going even further than what proposal suggests to get a
> really clear and readable API.
>
> Hooman
>
> On May 12, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> dispatch() and dispatchSync() would be my preference as asynchronous
> dispatch is the point of GCD and synchronous dispatch is a special case and
> therefore I think the visual asymmetry is an advantage.
>
> -Thorsten
>
>
> Am 12.05.2016 um 20:10 schrieb James Dempsey via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org>:
>
>
> On May 11, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Ricardo Parada <rparada at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> For synchronously and asynchronously how about the adverbs before the verb:
>
> syncDispatch()
> asyncDispatch()
>
>
>
> I think with the abbreviation ‘sync’ it’s very easy to read ‘sync’ as a
> verb and dispatch as a noun.
>
> i.e. I’m going to sync up with you about our plan
> i.e. I received a dispatch from headquarters
>
> I would be very fine with
>
> dispatchAsync() and dispatchSync() as method names.
>
>
>
>
> ?
>
> On May 11, 2016, at 10:50 AM, James Dempsey <dempsey at mac.com> 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> 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> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f65eb852/attachment.html>