is* API methods should be @properties

• Component: New Bugs
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Geoffrey Garen]

is* API methods should be @properties

[Geoffrey Garen]

Created attachment 250100 [details]
Patch

[Mark Lam]

Comment on attachment 250100 [details]
Patch

r=me

[Michael Saboff]

Comment on attachment 250100 [details]
Patch

What about code that use the old idioms?  Isn't there a binary compatibility issue?

[Geoffrey Garen]

> What about code that use the old idioms?  Isn't there a binary compatibility
> issue?

The Objective-C language generates method implementations for @property's, so old code that uses method invocation syntax still works.

[Geoffrey Garen]

Committed r182336: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/182336>

[Joseph Pecoraro]

Comment on attachment 250100 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=250100&action=review

> Source/JavaScriptCore/API/JSValue.h:383
> -- (BOOL)isUndefined;
> +@property (readonly) BOOL isUndefined;

I think ObjC convention would be to not include "is" in the property name, but specify it in the getter, like:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/EncapsulatingData/EncapsulatingData.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011210-CH5-SW1

    @property (readonly, getter=isUndefined) undefined;

That said, I'm not sure if these are exceptional cases because of their names.

[Geoffrey Garen]

> I think ObjC convention would be to not include "is" in the property name,
> but specify it in the getter, like:
> https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/
> ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/EncapsulatingData/EncapsulatingData.html#//
> apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011210-CH5-SW1

Yes, that is often true of properties.

>     @property (readonly, getter=isUndefined) undefined;
> 
> That said, I'm not sure if these are exceptional cases because of their
> names.

The consensus among some experts was that these properties were special because a property like "object.array" (as opposed to "object.isArray") might be expected to produce or consume an array, which is not what these properties do.

[Joseph Pecoraro]

> >     @property (readonly, getter=isUndefined) undefined;
> > 
> > That said, I'm not sure if these are exceptional cases because of their
> > names.
> 
> The consensus among some experts was that these properties were special
> because a property like "object.array" (as opposed to "object.isArray")
> might be expected to produce or consume an array, which is not what these
> properties do.

The "object.array" would not have existed, it still produces "object.isArray". That said, since it is readonly, I think what you have reads better anyways. In the end it all amounts to the same thing =)

[Geoffrey Garen]

> The "object.array" would not have existed, it still produces
> "object.isArray".

Hmmm... not even in Swift?

[Joseph Pecoraro]

(In reply to comment #9)
> > The "object.array" would not have existed, it still produces
> > "object.isArray".
> 
> Hmmm... not even in Swift?

Good point, I didn't think about Swift! I assumed it would respect "getter=" but after looking at some examples online, it looks like it doesn't.