Rename bind extension function to viewBinding

[MoonWolf125]

Current: inline fun <reified V : ViewBinding> BaseFragment.bind(): ReadOnlyProperty<Fragment, V> = bind(V::class) val binding by bind<MainFragmentBinding>()

Proposed: inline fun <reified V : ViewBinding> BaseFragment.viewBinding(): ReadOnlyProperty<Fragment, V> = bind(V::class) val binding by viewBinding<MainFragmentBinding>()

bind is rather ambiguous. Renaming to viewBinding would be more self-descriptive.

[ColeKainz]

I'm in between on this. I've seen other libraries use viewBinding in this situation, but the Java standard is to write method signatures as verbs or predicates, which I like. If I were to write this as a predicate, it would be bindingViewBinding. I'm not a huge fan of this name, especially since the object the function is acting upon is given by the generic.

I think val binding by binding<MyViewBinding>() is okay. However, it's mixing binding as a noun and verb

[MoonWolf125]

I was trying to think more along the lines of following a naming paradigm Google uses for similar extension functions/factories for consistency between internal and external code. (In all honesty, I'm surprised there's not already a Jetpack library containing bind<>()/viewBinding<>())

Ex: val viewModel by viewModels<MyViewModel>(), and val viewModel by activityViewModels<MyViewModel>() from the Fragment KTX Module, AndroidX ComponentActivity, or

val args: MyActivityArgs by navArgs() val viewmodel: MainViewModel by navGraphViewModels(R.id.main) from Jetpack Navigation

And while the ViewBinding feature name is used as a proper noun, it doubles as a verb because it's the action taking place, binding views.

My main worry is that bind/binding are too generic and not nearly self-descriptive enough even with the type-inference (especially since the extension function will be highlighted by the linter and thus our eyes will be drawn to it and not the type-inference).

[ColeKainz]

Didn't know those delegate functions existed! Alright, you've convinced me!