I've thought about it for a few days, and really like `reduce(mutating:_)`. I've updated the PR, and am now happy for this to go into review.
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/587 On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Russ Bishop <xen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Chris Eidhof <ch...@eidhof.nl> wrote: > > Not as a direct reply to Russ, but just to reiterate: to me, there are two > clear benefits of using the `inout` version of reduce: > > 1. The performance (currently discussed at length) > 2. Readability (because we can use mutating methods on `inout` arguments). > > Even if the compiler were to optimize the unnecessary copy of `return arr > + [el]` away, there are still a lot of other mutable methods that you might > want to use within the reduce closure. So I think the proposal is still > very valid even if the compiler optimizations would magically appear > tomorrow. > > To push this proposal forward a little bit, I'd like to come up with a > good name. It seems like we shouldn't overload `reduce`, but choose a > different name, so that we don't stress the typechecker. Any other > suggestions? > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Russ Bishop <xen...@gmail.com> wrote: > -- > Chris Eidhof > > > > Sorry for the derail! > > reduce(mutating:_:) { } is still my favorite; You can take mutating to > mean we will copy the value now but mutate it later. > > > Some alternatives: > > reduce(forMutating:_:) { } > > reduce(forInout:_:) { } > > reduce(initial:_:) { } > > reduce(copying:mutate:) { } > > // just kidding... > reduce(copyForLaterMutating:_:) { } > > > > It should definitely be some form of reduce. > > Russ > -- Chris Eidhof
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
