I don't know if it's considered too late at this point to rename 'reduce', but I'll add an enthusiastic +1 to renaming it to 'fold' and adding 'unfold'. 'Fold' is just as obvious a name as 'reduce', IMO (actually I even prefer it). I think changing it now with other source-breaking changes is better than moving forward with 'reduce' and a corresponding function with a confusing name. Fold/unfold would fit in beautifully with the prefix/suffix pairings already in the standard library.
Cole > On May 6, 2016, at 1:29 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > If we are discussing naming changes to reduce, here's my personal opinion: > > * When I first encountered it, I understood exactly what it did because I > knew that term of art. If it was named sequence, I would have been confused. > * If we are discussing name changes, I'd personally vote to change it to > fold. It is the other term of art used for it, and it makes unfold work. > > David > >> On 05 May 2016, at 22:39, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 5, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Erica Sadun <er...@ericasadun.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 4, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Proposal link: >>>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0045-scan-takewhile-dropwhile.md >>>> >>>> Sequence.prefix(while:) & Sequence.drop(while:) - These are *accepted* as >>>> specified in revision 3 of the proposal. >>> >>> I'm still a little sad we didn't go for `prefix`/`suffix` or `take`/`drop` >>> pairs that linguistically matched.Nonetheless I'm gratified these are >>> hopping into the language. That said, I'm going to put on my painters cap >>> to consider selecting some exterior latex for the feature I was most >>> looking forward to in this proposal: >>> >>> Core team writes: >>>> unfold(_:applying:) - This addition is *rejected* by the core team as >>>> written, but deserves more discussion in the community, and potentially >>>> could be the subject of a future proposal. The core team felt that the >>>> utility of this operation is high enough to be worth including in the >>>> standard library, but could not find an acceptable name for it. “unfold” >>>> is problematic, despite its precedence in other language, because Swift >>>> calls the corresponding operation “reduce” and not “fold”. No one could >>>> get excited about “unreduce”. “iterate” was also considered, but a noun >>>> is more appropriate than an verb in this case. Given the lack of a good >>>> name, the core team preferred to reject to let the community discuss it >>>> more. >>> >>> A few thoughts: >>> >>> * I'm not sure why a noun is more appropriate than a verb. Reduce isn't a >>> noun, prefix isn't a noun, drop isn't a noun. >> >> I’m not a naming guru, but my understanding is that ‘reduce’ was picked >> because it was term of art (like map), which is what allowed the misuse of a >> verb. >> >> One idea that came out of the core team discussion was something like: >> >> sequence(from: 0) { $0 += 42 } >> >> Since it returns a sequence. >> >> -Chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolution@swift.org >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
