I opened up a WIP PR on the SE repository (so many TLA's!). https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/587
I think I'll wait a few days before removing `WIP` until the naming discussion either reaches consensus or settles down. So far, I would summarize the thread as: people are in favor, but there is disagreement on the naming. I suspect the core team will ultimately decide on the naming? On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Chris Eidhof <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think we should replace the current `reduce` with the `inout` > version, also because the current reduce can be really useful as well (e.g. > when the return type is an Int). > > One downside of having a different name is that it'll be harder to > discover this version. If stressing the type-checker is the only problem, > then maybe we should improve the type-checker, instead of placing that > burden on every user of the language. > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 18 Jan 2017, at 09:00, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> While realizing that this name can cause confusion, I'd still prefer >> `reduce(mutating:_:)`, because it looks like the only readable option to me. >> Whatever name will be picked, I agree that traditional reduce without >> mutation should retain its name. >> >> 2017-01-18 5:17 GMT+03:00 Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> A serious possibility would be: `reduce(mutableCopyOf: x) { ... }`. >>> >>> It's verbose, but the nicer-looking `reduce(mutating: x) { ... }` is >>> incorrect since, as Charles pointed out to Dave, it's not `x` that's >>> mutated but rather a mutable copy of it, so it doesn't matter if `x` itself >>> is declared with `let` or `var`. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> >> >> I suppose as a second-choice I’d go for accumulate(into: with:): >> >> [1, 2, 3].accumulate(into: 0, with: +=) >> >> even [1, 2, 3].accumulate(into: 0, with: -=) doesn’t look so bad IMO. >> >> - Karl >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> >> > > > -- > Chris Eidhof > -- Chris Eidhof
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
