Hi,
Looks like there is a typo in the proposal:
func reduce<A>(mutating: A, _ combine: (inout A, Iterator.Element) -> ())
-> A {
var result = initial
This makes use of `initial` that is not defined, should be:
func reduce<A>(mutating initial: A, _ combine: (inout A, Iterator.Element)
-> ()) -> A {
var result = initial
> Le 24 janv. 2017 à 08:54, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> I've thought about it for a few days, and really like `reduce(mutating:_)`.
> I've updated the PR, and am now happy for this to go into review.
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/587
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Russ Bishop <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Chris Eidhof <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Not as a direct reply to Russ, but just to reiterate: to me, there are two
>> clear benefits of using the `inout` version of reduce:
>>
>> 1. The performance (currently discussed at length)
>> 2. Readability (because we can use mutating methods on `inout` arguments).
>>
>> Even if the compiler were to optimize the unnecessary copy of `return arr +
>> [el]` away, there are still a lot of other mutable methods that you might
>> want to use within the reduce closure. So I think the proposal is still very
>> valid even if the compiler optimizations would magically appear tomorrow.
>>
>> To push this proposal forward a little bit, I'd like to come up with a good
>> name. It seems like we shouldn't overload `reduce`, but choose a different
>> name, so that we don't stress the typechecker. Any other suggestions?
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Russ Bishop <[email protected]> wrote:
>> --
>> Chris Eidhof
>
>
> Sorry for the derail!
>
> reduce(mutating:_:) { } is still my favorite; You can take mutating to mean
> we will copy the value now but mutate it later.
>
>
> Some alternatives:
>
> reduce(forMutating:_:) { }
>
> reduce(forInout:_:) { }
>
> reduce(initial:_:) { }
>
> reduce(copying:mutate:) { }
>
> // just kidding...
> reduce(copyForLaterMutating:_:) { }
>
>
>
> It should definitely be some form of reduce.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Eidhof
> _______________________________________________
> 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
