[swift-evolution] Reduce with inout

[David Sweeris]

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 16:11, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> On 17 Jan 2017, at 23:09, Karl Wagner <karl.swift at springsup.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 16 Jan 2017, at 14:49, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> How does everyone feel about adding a second version of `reduce` to `Sequence`? Instead of a `combine` function that's of type `(A, Element) -> A`, it would be `(inout A, Element) -> ()`. This way, we can write nice functionals algorithms, but have the benefits of inout (mutation within the function, and hopefully some copy eliminations).
>>> 
>>> IIRC, Loïc Lecrenier first asked this on Twitter. I've been using it ever since, because it can really improve readability (the possible performance gain is nice, too).
>>> 
>>> Here's `reduce` with an `inout` parameter, including a sample: https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/fd3e9aa621569752d1b04230f92969d7
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Chris Eidhof
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I would even argue for it to be the default.
> 
> I mean, assuming having two “reduce”s would stress the typechecker, as Joe suggested it might, I would say “inout” makes sense to be the default and the other one can find itself a new name. 

IIRC, the "reduce" name comes from functional programming... should the functional style keep the functional name?

- Dave Sweeris 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170117/086f621b/attachment.html>