> On Dec 19, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 19, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto: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).
meh, on second though, "map" is already right there. I'm ambivalent now; sorry I weighed in.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
