[swift-evolution] What about renaming Optional.map to Optional.mapMe ?

[Robert Widmann]

I don't think this is a case where that rule applies, rather it seems like we're sliding back into Objective-C's approach of "stick a sentence into a selector".  `map` for Arrays is not called `mapIterateApply`, map for Sets is not called `mapUnorderedIterateApply`, map for Dictionaries is not called `mapUnorderedIterateKeyValuePairsApply`.  In every case, you are performing the same essential operation, so why not give them the same name?  There is incredible power in being able to pin down a singular common concept and factor it out as Sequence has done.  Moreso than not omitting needless words here in my opinion.

A certain, shall we say, controversial overload of `flatMap` is a different kettle of fish, though.

~Robert Widmann

2016/12/06 21:46、Jay Zhao <zhaojianyin at icloud.com> のメッセージ:

> It applies in theory to think Optional as a collect of one and for that reason map is a perfect name.
> 
> But in practice, we often use the same variable name for array and array? .  So when you see :
> 		cars.map({...$0...})  
> You can not tell which map and even worse which $0 it is.
> 
> According to Swift API Design Guidelines #1, Clarity at the point of use. 
> And to combine theory and practice, I propose mapUnwrapped to remove the confusion.
> 
> Actually this is what’s been adopted in my company:
> 
> public extension Optional {
>     /// Pass the `Optional` into the closure that returns `Non-Optional`
>     public func mapUnwrapped<U>(_ transform: (Wrapped) throws -> U) rethrows -> U? {
>         return try map(transform)
>     }
> }
> 
> To summary my idea:
> This is the situation where usability > design purity for a language(a tool).
> 
> 
>> On 7 Dec 2016, at 08:05, Robert Widmann <devteam.codafi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> If you think of Optional as a zero-or-one element collection there's really no reason this operation should be named any differently.  It still lifts a function over values to one over Optionals.  It still extracts the contents of the structure and applies the function (propagating failure if necessary).  The operation is no different from the one required of a plain Sequence conformance, why should it have a new name if it is not a new operation? 
>> 
>> ~Robert Widmann
>> 
>> 2016/12/05 22:46、Jay Zhao via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> のメッセージ:
>> 
>>> Hi there,
>>> 
>>> Code explains everything:
>>> 
>>> 	
>>> 
>>> /// Maybe a bad API naming in Swift? See below:
>>> 
>>>         /// array1 can be array of any object that have a `count` method
>>>         let array1 = [[String]]()
>>>         let array2 :[String]? = nil
>>>         
>>>         
>>>         // I believe the confusion between `array.map` and `optionalArray.map` is really bad.
>>>         // Because when you read code like this, you can not tell which is which:
>>>         _ = array1.map({$0.count})
>>>         _ = array2.map({$0.count})
>>>         
>>>         // It can be clearer:
>>>         // 1, we pass `self.element` into the closure
>>>         _ = array1.map({$0.count})
>>>         // 2, we pass self directly into the closure
>>>         _ = array2.mapMe({$0.count})
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The mapFlat method is also problematic.
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> Jay Zhao
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20161207/cc1583ed/attachment.html>