> On Mar 24, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > on Thu Mar 24 2016, Erica Sadun <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >>> >>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Just an update: >> >>> >>> The naming guidelines working group went back into negotiation over >>> the shape of SetAlgebra (and thus, Set and OptionSet) for >>> Swift 3, and reached a new consensus. We intend to bring forward a >>> proposal for the API shown here: >>> >>> http://dabrahams.github.io/swift-naming/SetAlgebra-Math.html >>> >>> and to update the guidelines to suggest using the "form" prefix to >>> create a verb phrase for a mutating method when the operation is >>> fundamentally non-mutating and described by a noun. >> >> I've got to say, I expected to hate this until I clicked the link and saw >> the actual >> proposed syntax. For the most part, it's good: clear and readable. >> >> Not a fan of "subtracting" (would prefer "bySubtracting"). Other than that >> really impressed by how this evolved. > > x by subtracting y > > means, “give me x, and get it by subtracting y.” The use of “byXXXing” > in existing Cocoa APIs doesn't really set a precedent because it was > always preceded by a noun that described the result being returned, > e.g. “x.stringByAppending(y),” which is a completely different thing. >
So far in each of the naming situations where I have disliked a particular form ("subtracting" here), the final results have been good. Apparently the strategy of pointing out the bad points and letting magic happen behind the scenes is a successful one. Because that's not very helpful: * excluding * differenceFrom * minus * excepting * subtractingElementsFrom / subtractingElements(from: or of: -- E _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution