I agree.
> On Mar 31, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Robert Bennett via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> I'm don't think we need all(equal:).
> 1) For a host of reasons, having a single signature for a function name is
> better than having multiple signatures when the single signature is capable
> enough.
> 2) A list containing a single distinct element is not a special enough case
> to check for to warrant its own function signature.
>
> all(equal:) can be replicated easily enough with nums.all { $0 == 9 }. Unlike
> all(equals:), this is extendible to non-Equatable types with equatable
> members.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
