Say you have some (state) class `Foo` and you want...

# compose

[Erik]

Say you have some (state) class Foo and you want to create a @Composable fun to build some UI for Foo instances. How would you name it?

• `Foo`: note that this is the same name as the Foo class. This is not an error (if class and function are in different namespaces), but it could be confusing.
• FooView
• FooComposable
Something else? Are there guidelines for composable naming?

[curioustechizen]

I call my state class as FooState. Then the composable is just Foo. But that's just me. I'm interested in how others approach this naming.

[Erik]

Sometimes you also see FooItem, FooRow or FooColumn when the composable is to be used in some list/grid/column/row

[Erik]

But I don't like that, because it couples the name to its callsite, while it might be reused in a different composable or on its own

[Filip Wiesner]

Not sure how well would it work but what about invoke operator function? 🤔 If you have instance of your Foo class, you would just call foo().

[Erik]

As an extension to the class that might work, but I wouldn't put it in the class code as that would put UI code in a class that holds some state.

[Erik]

It would break the convention of naming composable functions with a capital letter, though

[Filip Wiesner]

No, I don’t think it would. If you declare a composable lambda function or parameter, you also name it with small letter. This would be the same.

[Sean McQuillan [G]]

Personally, one of

class Foo / fun Foo
class FooState / fun Foo

In general, @Composable State.invoke() is fine if weird, though if you do this be aware of the @Composable <=> class isomorphism

• remember = val prop
• remember { mutableState } = var prop w/ mutable state
• fun params = ctor args

[Sean McQuillan [G]]

Basically, a composable function invocation creates an instance of a thing that is not a class but has all the same features.