`is` prefix for Boolean returning methods is quite...

# announcements

[igor.wojda]

is prefix for Boolean returning methods is quite straight forward. I wonder what are you thoughts on adding is prefix to Boolean properties?

// method
view.isVisible()

// property
view.visible
or
view.isVisible

[karelpeeters]

In this case I lean towards visible but it's an internal struggle every time simple smile

[dalexander]

I think at this point Kotlin has been in production too long to make that change, even if I would like to see it (I'm not a huge fan of property syntax in general, so I'm probably biased).

[Stefan Beyer]

I personally prefer view.isVisible, but it depends on whether you need the accessors to be used (by java code or some lib like jackson)

// kotlin
class Foo(val cool:Boolean,val isHot:Boolean)

// java
public class Java {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Foo foo = new Foo(true, true);
        foo.getCool(); // not very cool :(
        foo.isHot();
    }
}

you could add @getter:JvmName("isCool") to the property, but this is uglier than in the first place ^^

[karelpeeters]

@dalexander what change?

[dalexander]

I was just thinking about how properties can be exposed which may not follow boolean naming conventions?

[dalexander]

But it's slightly off topic from the original question I suppose. I do lean towards isFoo pretty heavily.

[arekolek]

I write isVisible: Boolean rather than visible: Boolean

Because of java interop, but also like I would write hasChildren: Boolean and not children: Boolean

Also, there’s #codingconventions 😉

[igor.wojda]

Let’s assume Java is not there - pure Kotlin project

[arekolek]

For example view.takeIf { it.isVisible } reads better than view.takeIf { it.visible }