[swift-evolution] RFC: didset and willset

[Erica Sadun]

> On May 20, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On May 20, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 20, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 20, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Right, but the catfight had a clear outcome:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1) keywords are conjoined
>>>>>>> 2) attributes are lower camel cased.
>>>>>>> 3) attributes should use “non” not “no”.  noescape should be nonescaping (and thus no camel bump).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Would you be in favor of a proposal that cleans all of this up at once and establishes this standard for all new features?  I don't mind the change and think consistency is a good idea, I just think it doesn't make sense to keep doing these as one-off changes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’d prefer one proposal to cover didset/willset and one to cover nonescaping (and any other nofoo attributes left).    They will raise different sorts of discussion, even though they both seem obvious to me.
>>>> 
>>>> Before putting together a proposal, are there any other de-facto rules besides the three already listed that touch on naming keywords and attributes? (I suppose no snake case is a given)
>>> 
>>> I think that these are the relevant rules.  As I mentioned upthread, .dynamicType is broken for a different reason, and thus leads to a different solution (it should be a global function in the stdlib, not a propery).
>>> 
>>> -Chris
>> 
>> 
>> Separate action items:
>> 
>> * Move dynamicType to standard library as a global function
>> * Rename didSet and willSet to lowercase to conform to Swift standard of conjoined lowercase keywords.
> 
> Sounds great.
> 
>> * Rename noescape to nonescaping to conform to Swift standard of "non"-modified attributes
> 
> I just looked and the one other wrong one we have is “noreturn”.  It would be great to tackle nonescaping and whatever noreturn should be in the same proposal.
> 
> Thanks Erica!
> 
> -Chris

To be clear before I put anything together, `nonreturning`, yes?

-- E

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160520/8eac52f9/attachment.html>