formFilter reads really weirdly... the use of filter in `filter` is not as a noun, but as a verb — compare to e.g., formRemainder. Calling formFilter won’t create a filter, it will “do” a filter. Perhaps formByFiltering?
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> And here are my answers, in a separate email to maintain a shred of >> separation between objectivity and subjectivity :) >> >> > On Sep 26, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution >> > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> > >> > 1. Is it right to assert that with a “removing” operation, the closure >> > should return `true` for removal? >> >> Yes. If the closure returned false for removal a different, less readable, >> name would be needed for the method. > > Agree, yes. > >> > 2. Is it likely that users will want to switch from out-of- to in-place, >> > and if so, will having to flip the closure cause confusion/bugs? >> >> I don’t think so. While the argument for an in-place remove is partly that >> it’s more efficient than x = x.filter (in addition to >> reability/discoverability benefits), I think that once both an in- and >> out-of-place version are available, users will reach immediately for the one >> they want. The scenario where you were filtering, and then you realize you >> could do it in-place more efficiently, doesn’t seem to me like it will come >> up in day-to-day use. > > Unsure. Maybe and maybe, but I think the confusion/bugs would be limited if > the full matrix of four operations exist. > >> > 3. Should we “complete” the matrix of 4 operations, or is it fine for it >> > to have gaps? >> >> I think filter(_:) and remove(where:) are sufficient. I don’t think we need >> to complete the set. > > Based on question (2), I would argue that the answer is yes. > >> > 4. If you are for completing, what should X and Y be called? >> > >> >> One of the reasons I _don’t_ think we should complete the set is that >> formFilter(_:) will take us into serious jumped-the-shark territory, >> naming-wise. >> >> I think there’s an argument for never having had filter, and always having >> had remove/removed (or possibly select/selected), but don’t think this is >> important enough to clear the bar for a rename of this magnitude. > > IMO, they should be called removing(where:) [removed(where:) reads weirdly in > conjunction with the preceding receiver] and formFilter(_:). Hundreds of > messages finally settled on "form" as the in-place verb of choice where the > noun can't ordinarily be verbed. No point in being shy about it now: that's > the Swift way, wear it proudly. > _______________________________________________ > 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
