Thanks Brent -- I completely agree with your assessment. I was failing to come up with the proper argument for just about the same idea!
Guillaume Lessard > On 8 avr. 2016, at 18:32, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The 'flatten()' method didn't get the Swift 3 API renaming treatment it >> should have, to go along with reversed, sorted, joined, etc. >> As I see Dmitri Gribenko already agree with it but we still have to discuss >> it here. So what do you think? > > I'm in favor. > > Though all of these things are terms of art, not all terms of art are created > equal. For instance: > > * `map` is supported by virtually any language which have any of these > higher-order functions, and to my knowledge the name `map` is universally > used. > * `reduce` is not quite as universally supported, but it's still very common, > and most (but not quite all) languages with higher-order functions support it. > * `filter` is very widely supported, but the *name* `filter` is not quite so > consistent. Ruby, for instance, calls it `select`, Perl calls it `grep`, etc. > * `takeWhile` lies on the other end of the spectrum, being very narrowly > supported. > > In my opinion, it would be a really bad idea to rename `map` or `reduce`; > `filter` is probably a bad idea but not terrible; but we should feel > relatively free to rename `takeWhile`. > > `flatten` is nowhere near as weak a term of art as `takeWhile`, but I think > it still falls towards that end of the spectrum. We shouldn't worry too much > about changing it. `map`, `reduce`, and `filter` are much stronger terms, and > we should be more cautious about changing them. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
