Hey kotliners, :slightly_smiling_face: Does anybody have some opinion about KTX: `isVisible`, `isInv...

# android

[henrikhorbovyi]

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()

[Haim]

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.

[henrikhorbovyi]

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?

[henrikhorbovyi]

Idk, it seems more elegant for me 😄

[Haim]

Actually, I even wasn't sure if your visible() function is setting it to visible or checking if it's visible...

[Haim]

Generally functions that do something should start with a verb. So setVisible() or makeVisible() sound better to me. visible() on the other hand, is an adverb, so the word doesn't seem to indicate that the function changes the visibility of the view.

[Cody Engel]

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.

[henrikhorbovyi]

I got it! Thank you for the opinion guys

[sindrenm]

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 mean “who's to say” is obviously the API and its docs, but my point is that the name itself is somewhat ambiguous.

[henrikhorbovyi]

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

[henrikhorbovyi]

Then, we made some extensions

[Cody Engel]

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

[henrikhorbovyi]

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