<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I’ll also chime in with horror at “unioning.” Eew.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Mathematicians read A ∪ B as “A union B” — never “A union <i class="">with</i> B” or “A union<i class="">ed</i> with B” or anything else.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In short, the word “union” functions grammatically much like the word “plus.” The current proposal thus sounds as ridiculous as “<b class="">a.plussing(with: b)</b>”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">• • •</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I agree with all those who’ve remarked on the uselessness of the “with:” for set operations.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">• • •</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On the part-of-speech aspect of this question:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This suggestion from Throsten makes the most sense, and feels the most natural — though it has the disadvantage that the add/union and subtract/difference correspondence is not immediately self-evident:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue;" class="">On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">mutating (verbs):<br class="">x.intersect(x)<br class="">x.add(x)<br class="">x.subtract(x)<br class=""><br class="">nonmutating (nouns):<br class="">x.intersection(x)<br class="">x.union(x)<br class="">x.difference(x)<br class=""></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This suggestion from Erica makes lots of logical sense, but is a likely source of programmer error, <font face="HelveticaNeue" class="">because I (and I’m sure many others) would assume that a.union(b) is non-mutating:</font></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue;"><font face="Menlo" class="">set1.union(with: set2)</font> tells set1 to perform the union. </div><div class="" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue;"><font face="Menlo" class="">set1.unioned(with: set2)</font> creates a new instance where set1 has been unioned with set 2.</div></blockquote></div><div class="" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue;"><br class=""></div><div class="" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue;">This one from Rob overcomes those problems, though “unite” feels like an affectation:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">On Feb 11, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Rob Mayoff via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">"unite" is already a perfectly good verb that means "create the union of". So why not</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra"> func union(with other: Self) -> Self</div><div class="gmail_extra"> func unite(with other: Self)</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra"><font face="HelveticaNeue" class="">All these are superior to “unioning.”</font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""></div></div></div></div><div class="">Cheers, P</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Feb 11, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Radosław Pietruszewski via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">-1 to the current diff.<br class=""><br class="">`unioning`, `oring` really make me cringe. (O-ring? Let’s hope it’s not too cold outside.)<br class=""><br class="">I also agree with Joe that the “with”s and “of”s are redundant. I really don’t see how they help explain the semantics of the method, or truly make anything clearer. Seems like an unnecessary attempt to make it sound like English, whether it’s useful or not.<br class=""><br class="">— Radek<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 11 Feb 2016, at 17:52, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Hi All,<br class=""><br class="">The API guidelines working group took up the issue of the InPlace suffix<br class="">yesterday, and decided that it was not to be used anywhere in the<br class="">standard library. We are planning to apply the changes shown here<br class=""><<a href="https://gist.github.com/dabrahams/d872556291a3cb797bd5" class="">https://gist.github.com/dabrahams/d872556291a3cb797bd5</a>> to the API of<br class="">SetAlgebra (and consequently Set) to make it conform to the guidelines<br class="">under development.<br class=""><br class="">Comments welcome as usual,<br class=""><br class="">-- <br class="">-Dave<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""></body></html>