> On Dec 19, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution 
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> 
> I disagree. Let’s not reopen what is settled. “Compact” can be a noun just as 
> “map” and “filter” can; as long as there are no in-place variants, there can 
> be no ambiguity.
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 17:11 Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution 
> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 8:56 AM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com 
>> <mailto:rjmcc...@apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Therefore, SE-0187 is accepted, with the revision that the new name be 
>> Sequence.compactMap(_:), and with the agreement that we will add 
>> Sequence.compact() when it is possible to do so.
> 
> 
> I like `compact` as the basis for the name, but I hope the core team will 
> consider whether the eventual nil-removal method should be called 
> `compacting()`, and whether therefore this method should be called 
> `compactingMap(_:)`. Prior art on the name `compact()` does exist, but I 
> don't think it's strong enough to justify deviating from the API Guidelines.
> 
> I don't think we need a full review on this tiny issue; five minutes of the 
> core team's time should more than suffice.

I agree with Brent. IMO we're firmly outside the domain of established 
terms-of-art here (Ruby notwithstanding). 
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to