On Jun 21, 2016, at 5:24 PM, Matt Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> DispatchQueue.async(execute:) and DispatchQueue.sync(execute:)
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The lack of verb in the base name bothers me. The API Design Guidelines say
>>> “methods with side-effects should read as imperative verb phrases”. You
>>> could argue that the argument label “execute” serves as the verb. However,
>>> .async and .sync are most commonly used with trailing closures where the
>>> argument label is not present.
>>>
>>> This issue was brought up during the review, but I did not see it being
>>> addressed. Why not name the methods something like .executeAsync(_:) and
>>> .executeSync(_:)?
>>
>> That feels a little redundant to me. It's worth remembering that the API
>> Guidelines are a means of creating clear APIs, not an end in themselves.
>> It's okay to deviate a little if you get a better result.
>>
>> The guideline that methods should "read as imperative verb phrases" applies
>> to the full name, labels and arguments and all, and not just the base name.
>> You'll recall that the original proposal had .asynchronously(execute:),
>> which is very much an imperative phrase. `.async(execute:)` was substituted
>> by popular demand, with "async" being regarded as a term-of-art exception.
>
> Right, the naming here strayed from the guidelines here under the term-of-art
> exception. None of the various alternatives really fit amazingly well, the
> async{,hronous} part of the API name communicates an important facet of what
> the call does. In that it goes away and executes the closure “somewhere
> else”. I feel this particular point is lost in example such as
> perform{andWait}. `.asynchronously` was an attempt to move towards the
> guidelines but it still missed that mark. I believe it’s still clearer to
> have `.async` as an exception.
What do you think of the names .executeAsync/.executeSync or
.asyncExecute/.syncExecute?
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
