+1 from me. I currently use reduce and just deal with the costs. On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> > > On Apr 14, 2017, at 9:05 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Apr 14, 2017, at 15:33, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> • What is your evaluation of the proposal? > >> > >> +0.5 because this is a half solution. I would also like to see a > variant which accepts an inout argument for the reduction to accumulate > into. > > > > Out of curiosity, do you have any particular use case in mind, or do you > just think that'd nicely "round out" the reduce functions (which would be > fine with me). > > This would be useful in any use case that involves reducing data that > isn’t all available at the same time for one reason or another (batches > arrive periodically, data is processed in chunks to avoid loading > everything into memory, etc). > > IMO the most fundamental variation of `reduce` Swift could offer is the > one that takes and `inout` accumulator. The others can easily be defined > in terms of that. > > > > > - Dave Sweeris > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
