Yep. With my proposed renaming this would work: [["hey"], ["what"]].joined().joined(separator: “”)
But so would this, if you prefer it: [["hey"], ["what"]].joined().joined() On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Jose Cheyo Jimenez <ch...@masters3d.com> wrote: > [["hey"], ["what"]].joined().joined() // proposed > > vs > > [["hey"], ["what"]].flatten().joined(separator: “”) // now > > I do agree that having two way of doing it now seems odd. > > [["hey"], ["what"]].joined(separator: []).joined(separator: “”) // now > > > > > On Jul 24, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch <jtban...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The thing is, joined also works on arrays-of-arrays today. The only > difference is that flatten doesn't have a separator. > > We wouldn't lose what your example shows — you could do this: > > [["hey"], ["what"]].joined().joined(separator: “") > On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 5:45 PM Jose Cheyo Jimenez <ch...@masters3d.com> > wrote: > >> Here is a quick example that we would loose. >> >> [["hey"], ["what"]].flatten().joined(separator: “") >> >> [["hey"], ["what"]].flatten() // ["hey", "what”] >> >> The way I think of it is flatten works on array of arrays while joined >> works on arrays of strings. >> >> I guess we could do this too >> >> [["hey"], ["what"]].joined(separator: []).joined(separator: "") >> >> >> >> On Jul 24, 2016, at 5:29 PM, Jose Cheyo Jimenez <ch...@masters3d.com> >> wrote: >> >> -1 for this. To me there needs to be a difference between String (which >> is not a normal collection) and other regular collections. >> >> In addition, I really don’t think this proposal has the needed strong >> support for the change. >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution < >> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> Here's a proposal draft. Comments welcome: >> >> https://gist.github.com/jtbandes/7978dc1848f7c37eeaa8e9aba27c7325 >> >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Ben Rimmington <m...@benrimmington.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On 22 Jul 2016, at 20:43, Jacob Bandes-Storch <jtban...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Ben Rimmington <m...@benrimmington.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> On 22 Jul 2016, at 02:46, Jacob Bandes-Storch wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> In the swift-lang Slack channel, a few of us were discussing >>> joined(separator:) and realized that flatten() does almost exactly the same >>> thing. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is there interest in renaming flatten() to joined()? Since joined >>> takes a separator that's any Sequence, we can't have a default value for >>> the separator parameter, but we can have a variant of joined() with no >>> arguments. >>> >> >>> >> I'd like default separators for the joined() methods. >>> >> >>> >> <https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-1428> >>> >> >>> >> But renaming flatten() to joined() seems complicated. >>> >> >>> >> < >>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/stdlib/public/core/Flatten.swift.gyb >>> > >>> >> < >>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/stdlib/public/core/Join.swift >>> > >>> > >>> > What makes it seem complicated? At the very least, one could just >>> rename the flatten() function. There might also be an opportunity to >>> combine the two files and delete some code from stdlib. >>> >>> There's only one joined() method (for a sequence of sequences): >>> >>> extension Sequence { >>> func joined<Separator: Sequence>(separator: Separator) -> >>> JoinedSequence<Self> >>> } >>> >>> There are many flatten() methods (`where` clauses omitted for brevity): >>> >>> extension Sequence { >>> func flatten() -> FlattenSequence<Self> >>> } >>> >>> extension LazySequenceProtocol { >>> func flatten() -> LazySequence<FlattenSequence<Self.Elements>> >>> } >>> >>> extension LazyCollectionProtocol { >>> func flatten() -> >>> LazyCollection<FlattenCollection<Self.Elements>> >>> } >>> >>> extension Collection { >>> func flatten() -> FlattenCollection<Self> >>> } >>> >>> extension BidirectionalCollection { >>> func flatten() -> FlattenBidirectionalCollection<Self> >>> } >>> >>> So it's not a simple one-to-one rename. >>> >>> When there's no `separator` argument, will FlattenIterator perform >>> better than JoinedIterator? >>> >>> >> And what would happen to the flatMap() methods? Is flatten() a term >>> of art? >>> >> >>> >> < >>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/stdlib/public/core/FlatMap.swift >>> > >>> > >>> > I'd say flatMap is more a "term of art" than flatten. "flatten" just >>> describes literally what is being done. Frankly I'm surprised it was never >>> named flattened(). Anyway, flatMap should stay. >>> >>> ## Future directions >>> >>> Will the flatMap(_:) methods also have flatMap(separator:_:) variants? >>> >> >> That's an interesting idea. It seems to be purely additive, however, so I >> imagine it wouldn't happen until after Swift 3. >> >> >>> -- Ben >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolution@swift.org >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
