[swift-evolution] API Guidelines: dropFirst?

[Shawn Erickson]

I agree the essence of the "terms of art" can still exist in the base name
while applying the "ed/ing rule". I would vote to have these renamed to
better align with Swift and less with the terms of art.

-Shawn

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:41 AM Patrick Pijnappel via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> Hmm, after some consideration I think we should reconsider renaming all of
> the exceptions (map => mapped, filter => filtered, etc).
>
> The main reason to use a term of art is such that people already familiar
> with the term will immediately understand it. However as Jonathan points
> out, since the modified terms are very close to the terms of art they are
> unlikely to hinder in this objective and any initial confusion would be
> very quickly and easily recovered from. Any mental pattern matching would
> quickly transfer to the Swift forms.
>
> – Basically* all benefits of using a term of art still apply.*
> – The likelihood, duration and impact of any confusion would all be very
> low.
> – It'd be a lot more consistent (which also aids the mind to learn to
> pattern match on -ed/-ing).
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:51 PM, David Waite via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>> I’ve always considered the term of art argument to be at least partially
>> a red herring.
>>
>> These methods are difficult because you don’t have guarantees of
>> non-mutability until you get to Collection - on Sequence, a dropFirst
>> method may mean that neither the original nor returned sequence can address
>> that item anymore. Names have to indicate that a Sequence may or may not
>> consume an item.
>>
>> It makes me wonder if we should evaluate doing something more aggressive,
>> such as eliminating the support of one-time/destructive Sequences
>> completely.
>>
>> -DW
>>
>> > On Jun 16, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > on Thu Jun 16 2016, Jonathan Hull <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> …Thus, I don’t really see the harm in renaming these to match the rest
>> >> of Swift.  It won’t cause any confusion that can’t be easily recovered
>> >> from.
>> >
>> > I'm beginning to think you may be right.
>> >
>> > --
>> > -Dave
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160616/52806514/attachment.html>