> On 10 Apr 2017, at 04:46, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Well, if we're going to bikeshed: > > I think removeAll(3) reads fine, while removeAll(of: 3) does not. I do not > think that reads right at all--what is "all of three"? Do we mean to contrast > it to "some of three"--like, maybe, two of three? > > By comparison, index(of: 3) works because the element equal to three has a > corresponding index. However, neither the element equal to three, nor three > itself, has a corresponding "allness." > > Put another way, "of" is not a preposition that can substitute for "equal > to." This becomes obvious if you consider that, while removeAll(equalTo:) > makes perfect sense, index(equalTo:) is not an appropriate alternative > (aesthetically pleasing or not) name for index(of:). If verbosity were not an > issue, the full names might be: > > removeAllElements(equalTo:) > index(ofFirstElementEqualTo:) > > From these hypothetical forms (I'm not suggesting we rename!), one can see > how "of" does not really fit with the sense of "removeAll" proposed here.
Agree with Xiaodi on all the previous points. removeAll(equalTo:) is still the best version for me. > Finally--if it's to be called "removeAll" and we want to use the word > "contains" for the equatable version, it would be more consistent to call it > "containsAll" and not "containsOnly". Have to disagree here. containsAll(3) has the same readability problems as removeAll(3). > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 21:32 Ben Cohen <ben_co...@apple.com> wrote: >>>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 5:41 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <br...@architechies.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1. Perfect. Let's not bikeshed this and get it done! >>> >>> >>> Sorry, I'm going to have to insist on bikeshedding. >>> >>> `equalTo:` is kind of ugly and has no precedent in the standard library. >>> Similar APIs seem to either leave the parameter unlabeled or use `of:` (as >>> in `index(of:)`). I think unlabeled is probably the right answer here. >>> >> >> I think removeAll(of:) works well for the equatable value version. >> >> FWIW of all the ideas from the all thread, containsOnly(_:) for the >> equatable value version works for me. It has a nice symmetry: contains(3) vs >> containsOnly(3). >> >>> The main shortcoming I can see is that if you see: >>> >>> array.removeAll(3) >>> >> >> Personally don’t feel good about an unlabelled version. It doesn’t read >> right. Remove all three what? >> >>> You might think `3` is either an index or a count. But neither of those >>> actually make sense: >>> >>> * It can't be an index because then `All` would have no meaning. There's >>> only ever one thing at a given index. Besides, indices are almost always >>> marked with `at:` or another parameter label. >>> * It can't be a count because `All` is already a count. What could "remove >>> all 3" possibly mean if the array doesn't happen to have three elements? >>> >>> And this is only a problem if the value happens to be an integer. If it's >>> anything else, the type makes clear that this can't possibly be an index or >>> count; it must be an element. >>> >>> (But if you really do think this is insurmountable, `removeAll(of: 3)` *is* >>> impossible to misinterpret and fits in better than `removeAll(equalTo:)`.) >>> >>> (P.S. The existing oddness of `removeFirst(_:)` compared to `removeFirst()` >>> and `removeAll()` is why I proposed last year that it be renamed to >>> `removePrefix(_:)`, which matches the count-taking `prefix(_:)` method.) >>> >>> -- >>> Brent Royal-Gordon >>> Architechies >>> > _______________________________________________ > 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
