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

[Dave Abrahams]

on Sat Apr 16 2016, Patrick Smith <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> Yes, I agree. I think in the guidelines should be a recommendation for
> mutating methods are preferred, when nonmutating are preferred, and
> when to have both. 

It would be interesting to see such a guideline.  OK, off the cuff:

Having a nonmutating method available often means you can make more use
of let bindings and method chaining, so when you have a choice and it
suits a use case you can imagine, at least write a nonmutating method.
In addition, you may want a mutating form of a method when you'd
otherwise have to return a new instance of a heavyweight type.

> If performance is a key goal of Swift, so much that it influences API
> design, then some details should be part of the guidelines also.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 3:56 AM -0700, "David Rönnqvist"
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>     By “the big three”, are you referring to only the naming of map, filter, and
>     reduce? 
>
>     I would also like to see a formal proposal along these lines, and possibly
>     more. 
>
>     I also feel that the `inPlace` suffix was very clear (most important) and
>     very much liked that it made the immutable version the default (less
>     important). It manages to describe the distinction between `union`/
>     `unionInPlace` and `sort`/`sortInPlace` in the name itself. To me, the `ed`/
>     `ing` difference is much more subtle and favors people who are familiar with
>     English grammar. One can argue that `sort` is both imperative and
>     functional, and that because of [either side] the default should be
>     [mutable/immutable]. Both arguments are valid. 
>
>     - David
>
>         On 15 Apr 2016, at 18:31, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
>         <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>             On Apr 15, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Антон Жилин via swift-evolution
>             <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>             I've already expressed these concerns, but nobody noticed,
>             apparently. Here is it:
>
>             I think current -ed/-ing convention is ugly. It breaks syntactic
>             correctness, experience from other languages, mathematical notation
>             and functional idioms.
>
>             `InPlace` suffix was so far more correct in these terms. We can make
>             anything a convention, but should we?
>             I liked the proposal about new naming conventions, but overlooked
>             this change.
>
>             Many people will agree with me. This still can be reviewed until
>             Swift 3.
>             If so, I will create a proposal to correct "the big three" in this.
>
>             What do you think?
>
>         I would like to see a formal proposal along these lines. My other
>         suggestions are here.
>
>         -- E
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         swift-evolution mailing list
>         swift-evolution at swift.org
>         https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

-- 
Dave