Documentation - Change complete_me (inner constructor helper function) to complete_me!

[moustachio-belvedere]

To be consistent with Julia style guidelines change complete_me to complete_me! as it alters at least one of its mutable arguments.

Although the “!” requirement is arguably less stringent on inner constructor completion functions, as they will never be called directly, only indirectly upon creation of a struct instance, the “!” should still be appended to the function name for code reading clarity.

As discussed here:

https://discourse.julialang.org/t/a-question-of-style-should-inner-constructor-completion-functions-end-with/8948

[fredrikekre]

On second thought -- is this actually mutation?

[moustachio-belvedere]

On the one hand, it is not traditional mutation as it must also return the struct back rather than just mutate it in place. On the other hand, it is mutating the struct so should be considered a mutating function.

It's my opinion that the "!" appended adds clarity but I'm a fairly inexperienced Julia developer. Others might disagree.

[GregPlowman]

On the one hand, it is not traditional mutation as it must also return the struct back rather than just mutate it in place.

Many mutating functions return the mutated object.

On second thought -- is this actually mutation?

What makes say you that?

Presumably, complete_me! would look like a normal external mutating function, and could be called from anywhere, not just from the inner constructor.

mutable struct Lazy
    xx
    Lazy(v) = complete_me!(new(), v)
end

function complete_me!(lazy::Lazy, v)
    lazy.xx = v
    return lazy
end

In isolation, the complete_me! seems indistinguishable from any other type of mutating function.

[ViralBShah]

I'm closing this since there doesn't seem to be a clear answer on this. Can always reopen if necessary.