> > I want to re-iterate my opinion on this discussion thread: anything > with a prefix is a hard-no from me. Namespaces are literally designed > for this, and I will not vote "yes" to `iter_all`, `iterable_all`, > etc, no matter what the prefix is. Anything without a namespace is a > no from me. > > I'm flexible on many other points, but not this one. It's 2020 (almost > 2021); let's use namespaces for what they were designed for. This is a > perfect opportunity; they work on more than just arrays so using the > `array_` prefix for consistency doesn't apply. >
Hey Levi, while I agree that namespaces were designed for this, I think `all` and `any` are too generic names, even in a namespace. I think Java's naming with any_match / all_match could be a good fit. If promises / futures make it into core in the future, there will be a need for an `any` / `all` function combining promises / futures. Maybe these should be named `array_*` and all array functions should be adjusted to work with iterators? Best, Niklas
