-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 226
[RFC] rename LateResourceValues to LateResources #55
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
err, cc @jonas-schievink ^ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure, this makes sense to me.
@homunkulus r+ |
📌 Commit edca7d5 has been approved by |
[RFC] rename LateResourceValues to LateResources After writing `LateResourceValues` several times I now think it's too long to type. I'd like that struct to be renamed to `LateResources`. I don't think there would be a loss in readability with the rename because you can think of "late resources" as resources that "don't exist" until `init` ends instead of as resources that are not initialized after `init` ends -- the second meaning maps better to `LateResourceValues`. This would be a breaking-change but we are moving to v0.3.0 due to #50 in any case. cc jonas-schievink
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
@homunkulus r+ |
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
📌 Commit edca7d5 has been approved by |
[RFC] rename LateResourceValues to LateResources After writing `LateResourceValues` several times I now think it's too long to type. I'd like that struct to be renamed to `LateResources`. I don't think there would be a loss in readability with the rename because you can think of "late resources" as resources that "don't exist" until `init` ends instead of as resources that are not initialized after `init` ends -- the second meaning maps better to `LateResourceValues`. This would be a breaking-change but we are moving to v0.3.0 due to #50 in any case. cc jonas-schievink
edca7d5
to
512091e
Compare
@homunkulus r+ |
📌 Commit 512091e has been approved by |
[RFC] rename LateResourceValues to LateResources After writing `LateResourceValues` several times I now think it's too long to type. I'd like that struct to be renamed to `LateResources`. I don't think there would be a loss in readability with the rename because you can think of "late resources" as resources that "don't exist" until `init` ends instead of as resources that are not initialized after `init` ends -- the second meaning maps better to `LateResourceValues`. This would be a breaking-change but we are moving to v0.3.0 due to #50 in any case. cc jonas-schievink
☀️ Test successful - status-travis |
After writing
LateResourceValues
several times I now think it's too long to type. I'd like thatstruct to be renamed to
LateResources
. I don't think there would be a loss in readability with therename because you can think of "late resources" as resources that "don't exist" until
init
endsinstead of as resources that are not initialized after
init
ends -- the second meaning maps betterto
LateResourceValues
.This would be a breaking-change but we are moving to v0.3.0 due to #50 in any case.
cc jonas-schievink