On Jul 8, 2016, at 10:56 AM, Dave Abrahams <dabrah...@apple.com> wrote: > > > on Fri Jul 08 2016, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose-AT-apple.com> wrote: > >>>> This reads like an English sentence, but it doesn’t have the correct >>>> meaning for me. This implies a structure that has a pre-existing >>>> “separator", and checks if that separator matches the predicate, >>>> rather than searching for an element that matches the predicate, and >>>> splitting on that. I realize that the former reading doesn’t make much >>>> sense as a function, but it’s still impeded my understanding more than >>>> helping it along. >>>> >>>> Alternate suggestions: split(where:), split(separatingWhere:). >>> >>> Split(where:) fails to imply that there are separators (and that some >>> elements would be omitted from the result), but we considered the second >>> one. I like the way it reads better, > > Actually I take that back. It still fails to imply that there are > separators and elements may be omitted. > >>> but “whereSeparator” has the advantag of containing the word >>> “separator” that's used in the predicate-free version. For me it's a >>> bit of a toss-up.
split(withLossySeparator:) ?? (I hate this but there's a point to be made that naming dangerous operations trumps simple names and the other optional external parameter names aren't exactly trim) -- E _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution