> On 17 Jan 2017, at 23:09, Karl Wagner <karl.sw...@springsup.com> wrote: > > >> On 16 Jan 2017, at 14:49, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> How does everyone feel about adding a second version of `reduce` to >> `Sequence`? Instead of a `combine` function that's of type `(A, Element) -> >> A`, it would be `(inout A, Element) -> ()`. This way, we can write nice >> functionals algorithms, but have the benefits of inout (mutation within the >> function, and hopefully some copy eliminations). >> >> IIRC, Loïc Lecrenier first asked this on Twitter. I've been using it ever >> since, because it can really improve readability (the possible performance >> gain is nice, too). >> >> Here's `reduce` with an `inout` parameter, including a sample: >> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/fd3e9aa621569752d1b04230f92969d7 >> <https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/fd3e9aa621569752d1b04230f92969d7> >> >> -- >> Chris Eidhof >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > +1 > > I would even argue for it to be the default.
I mean, assuming having two “reduce”s would stress the typechecker, as Joe suggested it might, I would say “inout” makes sense to be the default and the other one can find itself a new name.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
