Canonical Dave:
Me:
- use nouns for unambiguously functional items without side effects (distanceTo(), successor)
- use verbs for unambiguously procedural itemsThis works great so far. I think you can say
- use nouns for methods with no side effects (or only incidental ones,
like logging)
- use verbs for methods with significant side-effectsand you can stop there. Why does this have to be more complicated than
that?Because *someone* put mutating/nonmutating rules into the
guidelines.
Okay, guilty as charged already! :-)
And I'm OCD enough that they are irritating me. It's the
mutating/nonmutating bits that I perceive as unneeded hungarianisms
that push a little too far into detailed advice by tying method naming
to overly specific fancy rules. (Insert a joke here about fancy cats
and fussy linguistic grooming.)
I'm saying, why don't we replace the mutating/nonmutating stuff with
what I wrote above, and stop there? Doesn't that fix the problem?
One final point: I think the -ed/-ing advice is wrong. Adding "ed"
isn't really creating a past tense verb (reversed).No, it's creating the past participle. We had this checked by a
linguist :-).This is why I love you guys.
A benefit of working in a large company: an expert in <whatever> will
pop out of the woodwork to correct your mistakes.
···
on Sun Jan 31 2016, Erica Sadun <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
--
-Dave