Hey kotliners, 🙂 Does anybody have some opinion about KTX:

isVisible

,

isInvisible

,

isGone

extensions? I mean, first time I implemented KTX in my project I expected something like:

gone()

,

visible()

,

invisible()

I always use

isVisible

to set visibility according to a boolean expression. For example:

titleView.isVisible = title.isNotEmpty()

. So something like

visible()

would not be so helpful for me.

Good point, but in case you have no boolean expression, you just want to set some view visible/invisible after some liveData changes? You don't think

visible()

or

invisible()

is a better approach?

Actually, I even wasn't sure if your

visible()

function is setting it to visible or checking if it's visible...

Yeah mutators in general are shortened in Kotlin (remove the

get

and the

set

) but when it comes to boolean expressions you'd still have

is

or

has

for example. I wasn't aware KTX had those already, they sound pretty nifty though.

I got it! Thank you for the opinion guys

I'm a little bit on the fence about having boolean setters/getters for setting visibility, since it's really a tri-state thingy. Who's to say that

isVisible = false

makes it

GONE

and not

INVISIBLE

, for instance?

@sindrenm. I faced this code and it kinda bugged my mind a bit 😄 A banch of

true

and

false

How often do folks make things invisible instead of gone though? Realistically if I don't want to show something, I don't want it taking up any space on the screen. There are of course cases where you would want invisible but I don't think I've had a use for it on the last 4 apps I've worked on

Yeah I agree, I rarely set some view as invisible... but in this case it was needed