Yet another +1 for Haravikk's suggestion. Naming conventions are a good thing and mapped, filtered etc. are a perfect fit. I don't see a reason for an exception here.
R+ Sent from my iPhone > On 09 Apr 2016, at 11:03, Haravikk via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 9 Apr 2016, at 01:32, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> 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] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
