I think the problem would be that if you want to use it with a trailing closure
then it becomes misleading:
nums.contains { $0 % 2 == 0 }
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 2, 2017, at 9:01 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> What about contains(only:)?
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
>> On Apr 2, 2017, at 6:32 AM, BJ Homer via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> 'forAll' is definitely confusing; it sounds like iteration; I would not
>> expect that the closure would be required to return a Bool. The
>> implementation would likely bail out as soon as a single item failed the
>> test; there is no guarantee that each item would be visited, so iteration is
>> an incorrect mental model.
>>
>> In Python, this is just called 'all()'. (There is a corresponding 'any()'.)
>> We could follow the example of 'filter(_ isIncluded:)', which has a in
>> internal parameter name for documentation, but takes no parameter at the
>> call site; this might look like 'all(_ predicate:)'. Or we could follow the
>> example of 'drop(while:)' and do 'all(test:)'. (And with trailing closure
>> syntax, this would simply become 'all' (e.g. 'let readyToGo =
>> collection.all { $0.isReady }'.
>>
>> If a more explicit base name is desired, I suggest 'allPass(test:)'.
>>
>> -BJ
>>
>>> On Apr 2, 2017, at 3:17 AM, Richard Wei via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> `withoutException` sounds confusing to me. And it’ll potentially make a
>>> Swift newcomer think it has something to do with runtime exceptions.
>>>
>>> IMO `forAll(_:)` is the best name. It looks logically, quantificationally
>>> clear. With regard to the possible confusion w/ `forEach`, the “each" in
>>> `forEach` conveys the sense of iteration, while the “all” in `forAll`
>>> conveys both iteration and conjunction.
>>>
>>> -Richard
>>>
>>>> On Apr 2, 2017, at 00:05, Robert Bennett via swift-evolution
>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It figures, the hardest thing to pick is the name of this function…
>>>>
>>>> I like forAll the best so far, but I worry that it sounds too much like
>>>> forEach and would be confusing.
>>>>
>>>> What does everyone think of withoutException?
>>>> nums.withoutException(isEven) and nums.withoutException { isEven($0) }
>>>> make their purpose clear, and even make clear what happens for an empty
>>>> Collection.
>>>>
>>>> Other options that come to mind that I am less enthusiastic about:
>>>>
>>>> nums.every(satisfies: isEven) / nums.every { isEven($0) }
>>>> nums.entirely(isEven) / nums.entirely { isEven($0) }
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
