> Freak Show wrote:
>
> Am I the only one who finds this incredibly ugly and hard to read?
>
> This is more or less solved by inject:into: idiom. There is no reason for
> inout for this particular problem.
Yeah, the original signature seems more useful. If you go all `inout` like
Gwendal suggested, you might as well just iterate over the sequence with `for x
in xs`, updating the state as you go.
But your comment brought another idea to mind: if `mutating:` is considered a
bad name for a non-`inout` argument, how about `reduce(into:combine:)`, similar
to what Karl suggested earlier in this thread?
I think it reads very well at the call site, does not suggest `inout`ness of
the argument too much (of course there's no `&` at the call site either), and
it's still easily found with auto-completion:
let counts = words.reduce(into: [:]) {
$0[$1] = ($0[$1] ?? 0) + 1
}
— Pyry_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
