on Thu Apr 14 2016, Stephen Canon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Howard, thanks for the feedback. > > On Apr 14, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Howard Lovatt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 great addition. > > Would suggest the naming could be more consistent, in particular: > > 1 Anything returning Self could be named xxxed. In the current proposal > this > naming convention is sometimes used, e.g. divided, and sometimes not, > e.g. > subtracting. Suggest all unified with the xxxed convention. > > The names in the Arithmetic protocol are Dave A’s creation, but I think > they’re > a reasonable compromise given the constraints placed on us. While consistency > would be nice, I think that clarity at use site is more important, under the > rationale that code is read more often than written. Also, keep in mind that > in > practice, “everyone” will use the operators for arithmetic. Dave may have more > to say on the subject. > > 1 Anything returning Bool could be named isXxx. In some cases this is > used, > e.g. isUnordered, but not others, e.g. totalOrder. FWIW, that is a much more restrictive constraint than what our API guidelines specify. They say the usage should read as an assertion about the receiver, e.g. person.hasTooManyCats waterSupply.containsUnsafeLevelsOfLead are fine. > > > That’s a reasonable point. isTotallyOrdered(with: ) is simple, but I’m not > sure > how I would handle totalOrderMagnitude( ) under this scheme. Thoughts? > > Thanks, > – Steve > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
