[swift-evolution] [SR-933] Rename flatten to flattened

[Daniel Steinberg]

I agree with this and add that the 2.2 naming is unambiguous. There’s no doubt what is meant by sortInPlace().

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 9:26 AM, David Rönnqvist via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> I don’t particularly like these name changes. 
> 
> I would even go as far as saying that these recent discussions about renaming flatten, map, filter, reduce has made me question the original Swift 3 API renaming. What I mostly like about the current (2.2) naming is that the non-mutating version is the default (for example `sort`/`sortInPlace` compared to `sorted`/`sort`). I feel that switching the default version to be the mutating variant is quite a strong statement on the languages behalf with regards to mutability vs immutability. 
> 
> - David
> 
>> on Sun Apr 10 2016, Arsen Gasparyan<to.arsen.gasparyan-AT-gmail.com>wrote:
>> 
>>> Ok. Is it final decision?
>> No, any API change needs to go through review on the evolution list.
>> Also, FWIW, I am not particularly keen on changing these names.
>> 
>>> Can I start working on it?
>>> 
>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 at 23:07, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org>wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do it to them all: flatMapped, unioned, etc.
>>> 
>>> On Monday, 11 April 2016, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org>wrote:
>>> 
>>> on Fri Apr 08 2016, Brent Royal-Gordon<swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> The 'flatten()' method didn't get the Swift 3 API renaming treatment
>>>>> it should have, to go along with reversed, sorted, joined, etc.
>>>>> As I see Dmitri Gribenko already agree with it but we still have to
>>>>> discuss it here. So what do you think?
>>>> 
>>>> I'm in favor.
>>>> 
>>>> Though all of these things are terms of art, not all terms of art are
>>> created equal. For instance:
>>>> 
>>>> * `map` is supported by virtually any language which have any of these
>>>> higher-order functions, and to my knowledge the name `map` is
>>>> universally used.
>>>> * `reduce` is not quite as universally supported, but it's still very
>>>> common, and most (but not quite all) languages with higher-order
>>>> functions support it.
>>>> * `filter` is very widely supported, but the *name* `filter` is not
>>>> quite so consistent. Ruby, for instance, calls it `select`, Perl calls
>>>> it `grep`, etc.
>>>> * `takeWhile` lies on the other end of the spectrum, being very
>>> narrowly supported.
>>>> 
>>>> In my opinion, it would be a really bad idea to rename `map` or
>>>> `reduce`; `filter` is probably a bad idea but not terrible; but we
>>>> should feel relatively free to rename `takeWhile`.
>>>> 
>>>> `flatten` is nowhere near as weak a term of art as `takeWhile`, but I
>>>> think it still falls towards that end of the spectrum. We shouldn't
>>>> worry too much about changing it. `map`, `reduce`, and `filter` are
>>>> much stronger terms, and we should be more cautious about changing
>>>> them.
>>> 
>>> The problem is flatMap. The semantics of map, flatMap, and flatten are
>>> inextricably linked. IMO it would be weird to do this to one or two of
>>> these names and not to all of them.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>> 
>>> --
>>> -- Howard.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> --
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution