Home/ Questions/Q 8533013
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-11T09:51:19+00:00

This example is trivial just to show the point. Let’s say I use matrix

  • 0

This example is trivial just to show the point.

Let’s say I use matrix library, but is lacks some power, let’s say doubling every element in matrix is so crucial for me, I decide to write a method doubleIt. However, I could write 2 versions of this method

  1. mutable — doubleItInPlace
  2. non mutable — doubleItByCreatingNewOne

This is a bit lengthy, so one could think of naming convention, adding to mutable version _! suffix, or prefixing it with word “mut”.

Is there any establishing naming convention for making such difference?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    The convention is to name the mutable (in general, side-effecting) version with a verb in imperative form. Additionally, and more importantly, use the empty parameter list () at the end:

    def double()
def doubleIt()

    The immutable version, i.e. one producing a new object, you should name via verb in the passive form. More importantly, do not use the empty parameter list () at the end:

    def doubled
def doubledMatrix

    Note that naming the non-side-effecting method in the passive form is not always adhered (e.g. the standard collections library), but is a good idea unless it makes the name overly verbose.

    Source: Scala styleguide.

    • 0