> 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 <rpar...@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@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@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@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
