> 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
