Being consistent with existing convention is good; I also agree it happens to make perfect sense anyway.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 03:18 Andrew Trick via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I have a pile of naming quibbles; rather than describe them all in prose > (which turned into a mess), I've annotated parts of the "Full > UnsafeRawPointer API" section in a gist: < > https://gist.github.com/brentdax/8f4ed4decafc1d18c4441092baa13cfe>. > > > Let's bikeshed this easy one now... I’m curious what others think: > > // In general, I think you "initialize to" a value, not > // "initialize with" a value. "with" is needlessly vacuous. > // > // func initialize<T>(_: T.Type, with: T, count: Int = 1) > // -> UnsafeMutablePointer<T> > func initialize<T>(_: T.Type, to: T, count: Int = 1) > -> UnsafeMutablePointer<T> > > `initialize` was recently renamed to `initialized(with:)`. > > commit d96b051d28b6042adcc8b8692a918abddf211aec > Author: Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> > Date: Tue Feb 23 15:12:24 2016 -0800 > > stdlib: initializePointee(_) => initialize(with:) > > > Tacking "Pointee" on just for unary operations (and especially > operations with an optional count) created inconsistency. > > So Swift 3 users have already migrated to this “better” name. > > I agree that initialize(to:) is consistent with the language we use for > assigning values. But grammatically, I think initialize(with:) also makes > perfect sense and is just as common. > > In general, if there’s controversy, I’ll stick with the existing > conventions because there’s already enough to debate in this proposal. > > -Andy > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
