Thought: if the idea is performance and not drop-in replacement, why force the user to incur two copies? If the initial value were inout, this function would be more unambiguous even without a new name, and at _worst_ the user has to declare a variable with var, a worthwhile trade-off to save two copies.
(Ack, Jeremy just beat me to it!) On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 05:45 Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > I opened up a WIP PR on the SE repository (so many TLA's!). > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/587 > > I think I'll wait a few days before removing `WIP` until the naming > discussion either reaches consensus or settles down. > > So far, I would summarize the thread as: people are in favor, but there is > disagreement on the naming. I suspect the core team will ultimately decide > on the naming? > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Chris Eidhof <ch...@eidhof.nl> wrote: > > I don't think we should replace the current `reduce` with the `inout` > version, also because the current reduce can be really useful as well (e.g. > when the return type is an Int). > > One downside of having a different name is that it'll be harder to > discover this version. If stressing the type-checker is the only problem, > then maybe we should improve the type-checker, instead of placing that > burden on every user of the language. > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On 18 Jan 2017, at 09:00, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > While realizing that this name can cause confusion, I'd still prefer > `reduce(mutating:_:)`, because it looks like the only readable option to me. > Whatever name will be picked, I agree that traditional reduce without > mutation should retain its name. > > 2017-01-18 5:17 GMT+03:00 Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org>: > > A serious possibility would be: `reduce(mutableCopyOf: x) { ... }`. > > It's verbose, but the nicer-looking `reduce(mutating: x) { ... }` is > incorrect since, as Charles pointed out to Dave, it's not `x` that's > mutated but rather a mutable copy of it, so it doesn't matter if `x` itself > is declared with `let` or `var`. > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > I suppose as a second-choice I’d go for accumulate(into: with:): > > [1, 2, 3].accumulate(into: 0, with: +=) > > even [1, 2, 3].accumulate(into: 0, with: -=) doesn’t look so bad IMO. > > - Karl > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > > > -- > Chris Eidhof > > > > > -- > Chris Eidhof > _______________________________________________ > 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