[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Add an all algorithm to Sequence

[Rien]

> On 01 Apr 2017, at 16:10, David Hart <david at hartbit.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 1 Apr 2017, at 11:32, Rien <Rien at Balancingrock.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 01 Apr 2017, at 10:47, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:40 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 1 Apr 2017, at 09:50, Brandon Trussell <brandon2k3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I agree that based on the method name, I thought a collection would be returned.  
>>> 
>>> Now that I think more about it, I think you're right. It is confusing. Perhaps:
>>> 
>>> allAre(equalTo: )
>>> allAre(matching: )
>>> 
>>> Well, if we're going to go full stdlib naming guidelines, shouldn't they be--
>>> 
>>> ```
>>> areAll(equalTo:)
>>> areAll(matching:)
>>> ```
>> 
>> 
>> thatAre(equalTo: )
>> thatAre(matching: )
> 
> That would be confusing again. You'd get the impression that the functions are returning elements of the Sequence, not a Bool.

Yup. my bad.

Rien.


> 
>> Regards,
>> Rien
>> 
>> Site: http://balancingrock.nl
>> Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
>> Github: http://github.com/Balancingrock
>> Project: http://swiftfire.nl
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 12:36 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 1 Apr 2017, at 06:02, Will Stanton via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 to adding, but the name `all` suggests (to me) the return of another sequence, not a Bool.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not too concerned because the mandatory labels makes it clear.
>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps the function name should be question-like?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Suggesting: `membersSatisfy(condition:)` or `allSatisfy(condition:)` or maybe even just `satisfies(condition:)`
>>>>> The question-like modifier/verb is necessary to suggest a Bool and IMO not a needless word.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Will Stanton
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 31, 2017, at 11:28, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hopefully non-controversial, aside from the naming of the method and arguments, about which controversy abounds
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Brandon
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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