Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've thought about it for a few days, and really like `reduce(mutating:_)`. I'm not a fan of this. It reads in a way that makes it seem like the parameter should be inout, but it isn't. A variation of reduce where the initial value parameter *is* inout is perfectly sensible (whether or not we want it in the standard library). With that in mind, I don't think we should use this name. Unfortunately I don't have a better suggestion. I think it was Brent who suggested "mutatingCopyOf" which is more accurate, but also undesirably verbose. > 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
