Hello, Just to paint the bikeshed...
The -er suffix makes sense for methods that follow the convention of naming methods after verbs. Forget io.Reader for a moment, and think of os.File. When you call the method Read, you are asking the instance to read from the file on disk. myvar.Read can be understood as subject/verb. In this case, myvar is the reader, but it is passing the data back to you. Robert On Thursday, 17 January 2019 14:48:30 UTC-5, Jakob Borg wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2019, at 15:42, Victor Giordano <vituc...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> 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 was a mental stumbling block for me for a long time when I started > out with Go. For me, the "Reader" is the one who calls Read(), so an > io.Reader seemed like the opposite of what I wanted. I would have better > understood it as io.Readee. It works out better if I see the Reader as some > sort of intermediate entity that affects reads on whatever the underlying > thing is you want to read from… Or if I see it as just an > interface-indicating nonsense suffix, like a capital-I prefix… > > //jb > -- 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.
