[swift-evolution] [pitch] Adding in-place removeAll to the std lib

[Maximilian Hünenberger]

How about this:

    array.removeEvery(3)
    array.removeEvery{ $0 > 3 }

I think it preserves the meaning while it reads nicely. However "every" has no precedent in other functions, as far as I know.

> Am 10.04.2017 um 04:32 schrieb Ben Cohen via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>:
> 
> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 5:41 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <brent at architechies.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1. Perfect. Let's not bikeshed this and get it done!
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry, I'm going to have to insist on bikeshedding.
>> 
>> `equalTo:` is kind of ugly and has no precedent in the standard library. Similar APIs seem to either leave the parameter unlabeled or use `of:` (as in `index(of:)`). I think unlabeled is probably the right answer here.
>> 
> 
> I think removeAll(of:) works well for the equatable value version.
> 
> FWIW of all the ideas from the all thread, containsOnly(_:) for the equatable value version works for me. It has a nice symmetry: contains(3) vs containsOnly(3).
> 
>> The main shortcoming I can see is that if you see:
>> 
>> 	array.removeAll(3)
>> 
> 
> Personally don’t feel good about an unlabelled version. It doesn’t read right. Remove all three what?
> 
>> You might think `3` is either an index or a count. But neither of those actually make sense:
>> 
>> * It can't be an index because then `All` would have no meaning. There's only ever one thing at a given index. Besides, indices are almost always marked with `at:` or another parameter label.
>> * It can't be a count because `All` is already a count. What could "remove all 3" possibly mean if the array doesn't happen to have three elements?
>> 
>> And this is only a problem if the value happens to be an integer. If it's anything else, the type makes clear that this can't possibly be an index or count; it must be an element.
>> 
>> (But if you really do think this is insurmountable, `removeAll(of: 3)` *is* impossible to misinterpret and fits in better than `removeAll(equalTo:)`.)
>> 
>> (P.S. The existing oddness of `removeFirst(_:)` compared to `removeFirst()` and `removeAll()` is why I proposed last year that it be renamed to `removePrefix(_:)`, which matches the count-taking `prefix(_:)` method.)
>> 
>> -- 
>> Brent Royal-Gordon
>> Architechies
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170410/d8b7b9f9/attachment.html>