Thanks you both gentleman for sharing your point of view on this! I shall assume that the convention doesn't fit in 100% of the cases.
Greetings V El miércoles, 16 de enero de 2019, 12:38:22 (UTC-3), Ian Davis escribió: > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, at 2:42 PM, Victor Giordano wrote: > > As far i can get to understand the english language (i'm not a native > speaker), the "er" seems to denotes or describe things in a more "active > way" (the thing that they actually do by itself), and the "able" describes > things in a more "passive way" (the thing that you can "ask it/his/her" to > do). Do you find this appreciation correct? > > > This is correct. > > The Go idiomatic style is to use the '-er' suffix. But this can sometimes > lead to strange or obscure names even for native English speakers. > > For example, an interface with a "Stale() bool" method seems very strange > when named as "Staler". All these sound weird: Lookuper, Errorer, Nexter > > My preference is for naming to be clear and understandable as I can make > it. I use '-er' if it makes sense, then maybe '-able' or even something > that captures something from the domain the usual ones being Logger or > DataStore. > > All the best, > > Ian > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
