If the semantic is essentially that of a getter that just happens to lazily create what it gets on demand, then I don't think "require" or "required" is needed. It can just be named as a getter. If the side effect is very important and especially if clients ever call the function only for its side effect, then a verb phrase would be better. I am not sure which applies in this case.
- Maciej On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:20 PM, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >>> Why don't we call it requireStyleResolver() instead? >> >> I’m warming to this idea. Maybe we can use “require” as a term of art, >> analogous to the way we use “create”, to mean “create if not already >> created”. > > Since the fact that it returns a reference implies that it must create > something if necessary, the “required” part of the name seems redundant. Why > not just > StyleResolver& styleResolver() > > requireStyleResolver() sounds like it would return a bool. > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
