> On Nov 9, 2017, at 10:45 AM, BJ Homer via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Kevin Ballard via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017, at 09:29 PM, Paul Cantrell via swift-evolution wrote: >>> The problem in the Doodads example is that the name flatMap is used to >>> identify two distinct intents: concatenating arrays and filtering nils. One >>> can argue that those two operations are, in some lofty abstract sense, if >>> you squint, two instances of some more general pattern — but I don’t think >>> it’s fair to say that they represent the same intent. These separate >>> intents deserve separate names. >> >> They absolutely represent the same intent if you think of an optional as a >> collection of zero or one elements. >> >> -Kevin Ballard > > But as `Optional` does not conform to collection, I would suggest that the > vast majority of of developers do _not_ think of them as a collection of zero > or one elements. (I certainly don’t know any who naturally think of it that > way.) We don’t treat Optional as a collection anywhere else in the API, and > it seems odd to do so in just this one case. >
And, to be clear, the lack of Collection conformance by Optional is an active choice, not an omission. The “think of optionals as collections” explanation is a good way to help people who are confused by the overload. But an even better way would be to not have a confusing overload in the first place. > -BJ > _______________________________________________ > 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
