> On Jan 16, 2017, at 5:49 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > How does everyone feel about adding a second version of `reduce` to > `Sequence`? Instead of a `combine` function that's of type `(A, Element) -> > A`, it would be `(inout A, Element) -> ()`. This way, we can write nice > functionals algorithms, but have the benefits of inout (mutation within the > function, and hopefully some copy eliminations). > > IIRC, Loïc Lecrenier first asked this on Twitter. I've been using it ever > since, because it can really improve readability (the possible performance > gain is nice, too). > > Here's `reduce` with an `inout` parameter, including a sample: > https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/fd3e9aa621569752d1b04230f92969d7 > <https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/fd3e9aa621569752d1b04230f92969d7> > > -- > Chris Eidhof > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
+1 Instead of a filter reimplementation for the proposal, might be good to do something that doesn’t exist this would be useful for, like a version of Unix uniq that filters adjacent equal entries.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
