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

[Ricardo Parada]

or perhaps containsOnly()
or maybe allMatch()
or membersMatch()

:-)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 2, 2017, at 1:57 AM, Rien via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 02 Apr 2017, at 07:51, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Given the relationship to contains, why not keep it simple and go with:
>> 
>> onlyContains(_ element:)
>> onlyContains(_ matching:)
>> 
>> [9, 9, 9, 9, 9].onlyContains(9) // true
>> [1, 2, 3, 2, 3].onlyContains { $0 < 3 } // false
>> 
>> - Karl
> 
> IMO, we have a winner!
> 
> Rien.
> 
>> 
>>> On 1 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:)
>>> ```
>>> 
>>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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