Just some context:
"We have a few conjoined keywords already (typealias, associatedtype,
fallthrough). In the discussion about these terms, we decided that these read
best when all lowercase, because they are treated as atomic concepts by
programmers"
and
"On it being a conjoined word, we agreed that the language is currently
inconsistent (we have typealias, fallthrough, but also didSet/willSet and
@warn_unused_result) and that we should clean it up. Conjoined feels like the
right direction to go for this case. We didn’t discuss it but IMO, didSet
should get lowercased as well."
-- E
> On May 18, 2016, at 2:50 PM, Sean Heber <s...@fifthace.com> wrote:
>
> +1 on not getting rid of willSet and didSet for sure!
>
> As for naming, it doesn’t bother me much either way, but I think lowercase
> makes sense with the direction everything else is going.
>
> l8r
> Sean
>
>
>> On May 18, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Michael Peternell via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Erica,
>>
>> "didset" and "willset" are outliers in the general rule that when combining
>> multiple words into an identifier, that you should use camelCase. which rule
>> is more important? I'd like to introduce a third rule: don't fix it if it
>> isn't broken, or more mildly: if in doubt, keep it the way it is. or another
>> one: embrace precedent.. "@IBOutlet" is also not all-lowercase, should it be
>> changed too? I'd say no, because in objc it is called "IBOutlet" as well.
>> Also, for my Apple Mail client, "didset" and "willset" are marked as typos,
>> but "didSet" and "willSet" is okay :)
>>
>> => I vote for "didSet" and "willSet".
>>
>> I think we should be more careful when trying to argue with "consistency".
>> It sounds objective, when in reality it's often very subjective, because
>> Immanuel Kant's imperative is ambiguous ;) there are multiple ways to be
>> consistent. If you are saying that something is inconsistent, you either
>> assert a specific rule of consistency (like "keywords are always
>> lowercase"), or you must argue that there is no general/sane rule under
>> which the individual parts of the system are consistent.
>>
>> And for all the others who want to abolish didSet and willSet completely:
>> NO WAY! they are both useful and I even used them for real code. For
>> example, from code in my bachelors thesis (it's about polygons):
>>
>> public var points: Array<CGPoint> = [] {
>> didSet {
>> _area = nil
>> _centroid = nil
>> }
>> }
>>
>> I want to cache the _area and _centroid of a polygon, because I'm going to
>> use it many many times more often than I change points. I would have to
>> rewrite that code to something like
>>
>> private var _points: Array<CGPoint> = []
>> public var points {
>> get {
>> return _points
>> }
>> set {
>> _area = nil
>> _centroid = nil
>> _points = newValue
>> }
>> }
>>
>> That's not better, and it probably breaks the COW-optimization of the
>> underlying array. (And don't tell me that my design is bad because I use
>> "didSet", I really don't think so.)
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>> Am 18.05.2016 um 17:09 schrieb Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org>:
>>>
>>> didSet and willSet remain outliers in the general rule of conjoined
>>> lowercase keywords. Is there any support for bringing these outliers into
>>> the fold?
>>>
>>> -- E, going through her "ttd notes" this morning
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
