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

Haravikk swift-evolution at haravikk.me
Tue Apr 19 04:56:25 CDT 2016

> On 19 Apr 2016, at 10:40, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> Totally agree with Brent, too. And I wouldn't rename flatten either.
> A brief postscript on terms of art:
> I wrote my first Python this week. I was very glad that `map` was named `map`. I just had to glance at the docs to see whether it was a function or a method and which argument came first. It took less time and involved less doubt than learning their closure syntax did.

Are you suggesting that if it had been named “mapped” or “mapping” that you would have been unable to find it? Any decent search engine and/or auto-complete should get you to the correct function just as quickly, again, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that these functions be radically renamed, just that their tense be altered to match the new naming convention, which doesn’t change the root word from which they are derived.

> On 15 Apr 2016, at 12:49, Daniel Steinberg via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> I agree with this and add that the 2.2 naming is unambiguous. There’s no doubt what is meant by sortInPlace().

I’m normally in favour of more explicit meaning rather than less, but this where Swift’s type system and the @warn_unused_result attribute come into play to eliminate the need for it:

	myCollection.sorted()			// Warning, unused result
	let sorted = myCollectioned.sort()	// Void return type

A more explicit term is only needed for functions where there is ambiguity in how they are used IMO, i.e- if a function is both mutating and has a return type. The fact that .sort() doesn’t return anything does a pretty good job of clarifying what it does.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160419/1cca7172/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list