[swift-evolution] API Guidelines: dropFirst?

[Patrick Pijnappel]

There seems to be a decent amount of support for revisiting these. I
drafted a proposal here: [thread]
<http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution&article=20864>

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Shawn Erickson <shawnce at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/e65a5f4f/attachment.html>