Relatively straightforward to write this, which usually has meant "no" to adding something to the standard library. (Not that I agree with that measure.)
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse brevity and errors > On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:13 AM, Ole Begemann via swift-users > <swift-users@swift.org> wrote: > > On 26.04.2017 17:01, J.E. Schotsman via swift-users wrote: >>> On 26 Apr 2017, at 16:54, Rien <r...@balancingrock.nl> wrote: >>> >>> Agree, though the function should probably be named something like: >>> withEach instead of forEach. >>> Maybe worth a proposal on evolution? >> Let’s wait until the people at the other side of the big lake have had time >> to react. > > There have been requests for something like this on swift-evolution, e.g. > here in the context of the discussion about a `reduce` variant that takes > `inout` arguments: > https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170123/030641.html > > An alternative might be to add a variant of `map` to `MutableCollection` that > mutates the collection directly, see: > https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170123/030643.html. > > But as far as I know there hasn't been a proposal for adding this. (Is it > important enough to have in the standard library? I don't know.) > > _______________________________________________ > swift-users mailing list > swift-users@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users _______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
