+1 for Haravikk's reasoning, mapped etc. are the best choice. On Saturday, 9 April 2016, Haravikk via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 9 Apr 2016, at 01:32, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > `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. > > I still don’t see what’s being lost here, it’s not like the proposal is to > radically rename them, all we’d end up with is .mapped(), .flattened(), > .filtered() etc., which any good search engine should still be able to > find, and will still come up in auto-completion if you start typing .map, > .flatten and so-on. I just don’t see the point of even having naming > conventions if we allow outside influences to force exceptions for IMO > fairly weak reasons; it amounts to the “because everyone else is doing it” > reasoning, but again, it’s not as if someone used to using .map is going to > be suddenly lost and confused when presented with .mapped() instead. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > -- -- Howard.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
