Agree. The functional style should keep the functional name. On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 16:18 David Sweeris via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 2017, at 16:11, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On 17 Jan 2017, at 23:09, Karl Wagner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 16 Jan 2017, at 14:49, 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 > > -- > Chris Eidhof > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > +1 > > I would even argue for it to be the default. > > > I mean, assuming having two “reduce”s would stress the typechecker, as Joe > suggested it might, I would say “inout” makes sense to be the default and > the other one can find itself a new name. > > > IIRC, the "reduce" name comes from functional programming... should the > functional style keep the functional name? > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > 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
