There seems to be a decent amount of support for revisiting these. I drafted a proposal here: [thread] <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution&article=20864>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Shawn Erickson <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree the essence of the "terms of art" can still exist in the base name > while applying the "ed/ing rule". I would vote to have these renamed to > better align with Swift and less with the terms of art. > > -Shawn > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM Patrick Pijnappel via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hmm, after some consideration I think we should reconsider renaming all >> of the exceptions (map => mapped, filter => filtered, etc). >> >> The main reason to use a term of art is such that people already familiar >> with the term will immediately understand it. However as Jonathan points >> out, since the modified terms are very close to the terms of art they are >> unlikely to hinder in this objective and any initial confusion would be >> very quickly and easily recovered from. Any mental pattern matching would >> quickly transfer to the Swift forms. >> >> – Basically* all benefits of using a term of art still apply.* >> – The likelihood, duration and impact of any confusion would all be very >> low. >> – It'd be a lot more consistent (which also aids the mind to learn to >> pattern match on -ed/-ing). >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:51 PM, David Waite via swift-evolution < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I’ve always considered the term of art argument to be at least partially >>> a red herring. >>> >>> These methods are difficult because you don’t have guarantees of >>> non-mutability until you get to Collection - on Sequence, a dropFirst >>> method may mean that neither the original nor returned sequence can address >>> that item anymore. Names have to indicate that a Sequence may or may not >>> consume an item. >>> >>> It makes me wonder if we should evaluate doing something more >>> aggressive, such as eliminating the support of one-time/destructive >>> Sequences completely. >>> >>> -DW >>> >>> > On Jun 16, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > on Thu Jun 16 2016, Jonathan Hull <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> …Thus, I don’t really see the harm in renaming these to match the rest >>> >> of Swift. It won’t cause any confusion that can’t be easily recovered >>> >> from. >>> > >>> > I'm beginning to think you may be right. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > -Dave >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
