Indeed, OED points out that modern usage is "chiefly military." Probably an argument against its usage here.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:09 PM Douglas Gregor <<a href="mailto:dgregor@apple.com">dgregor@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 9:20 AM, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hmm, "emplace" looks like more or less a synonym for "install." I<br>
> don't think it suggests that the object is being put in place of the<br>
> subject.<br>
<br>
It’s roughly a synonym. “emplaceUnion” is "putting the union into position". There is no other position than “self”.<br>
<br>
> The latest example in the Oxford English Dictionary, from<br>
> 2010, is:<br>
> "Insurgents would hastily emplace victim-activated IEDs...after<br>
> Pathfinder came through."<br>
> Here, the IEDs are not taking the place of the insurgents.<br>
<br>
I was going to comment about your choice of a terrorism-related example sentence, but the online OED *only* uses war-related examples for this verb.<br>
<br>
- Doug<br>
<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution<br>
> <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Apr 3, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Shawn Erickson <<a href="mailto:shawnce@gmail.com" target="_blank">shawnce@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:27 PM Shawn Erickson <<a href="mailto:shawnce@gmail.com" target="_blank">shawnce@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 6:41 AM Michel Fortin via swift-evolution<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> What is your evaluation of the proposal?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I don't like "form" as a prefix. To me there is no difference between<br>
>>>> `union` and `formUnion`: both sounds functional-style, and actually the<br>
>>>> second one perhaps a bit more to my ears. There's basically two dictionary<br>
>>>> definitions of "form":<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 1. "bring together parts or combine to create (something)" which to me<br>
>>>> implies a new value is created, and<br>
>>>> 2. "make or fashion into a certain shape or form" which would imply that<br>
>>>> the material you start with is transformed, which is apparently the intended<br>
>>>> meaning and also the reverse meaning from the above.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I mean, doesn't this make sense as an API?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> let donut = baker.formDonut(dough) // non-mutating<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Perhaps instead of "form" we could use "become" as a prefix when the<br>
>>>> operation is naturally described by a noun. That would seem less ambiguous<br>
>>>> to me:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> a.becomeUnion(b)<br>
>>>> a.becomeIntersection(b)<br>
>>>> a.becomeSuccessor(b)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> It's a bit passive, but I find it fits well when the operation is a noun.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> And there's no way the term lends itself to non-mutating cases without<br>
>>>> things becoming nonsensical:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> let donut = baker.becomeDonut(dough) // non-mutating?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I also am having difficulty coming to terms with the use of "form" (I am a<br>
>>> native English speaker). As you note "form" can imply the creation of<br>
>>> something from parts (more like assembling a new thing) as well as the<br>
>>> creation of something out of a material say a of block clay (more like<br>
>>> molding something out of an existing thing). It doesn't seem clear cut to me<br>
>>> to imply in place mutation.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Additionally my eyes / brain keep seeing "from" instead of "form". This<br>
>>> type of issue is generally true with any short word made up of the same set<br>
>>> of letters (made worse since "from" is more common in programming then<br>
>>> "form"). The mind quickly narrows in on a set of possible words given the<br>
>>> letters we see and then uses context to help get the correct one and/or<br>
>>> additional visual parsing to understand the exact ordering of letters (more<br>
>>> energy expended). Anyway since I keep seeing "from" instead of "form" I keep<br>
>>> going in the direction of thinking it returns something made from the two<br>
>>> (or more) items involved (not really sure why "from" goes that direction in<br>
>>> my head, it could also go the in place direction).<br>
>>><br>
>>> I would prefer something other then "form" (note I just typed "from" by<br>
>>> mistake)... I think your suggestion of "become" has merit.<br>
>>><br>
>>> y.becomeUnion(x) --reads to me as--> "y become union with x"<br>
>>> y.formUnion(x) --read to me as--> "y from oops... y forming a union of x"<br>
>>> y.becomeIntersection(x) --reads to me as--> "y become intersection with x"<br>
>>> y.formIntersection(x) --read to me as--> "y from oops... y forming an<br>
>>> intersection with x"<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> After stepping away for a bit and looking at it from the POV of the API of<br>
>> Set and not in the context of "y" I could read things in the abstract as...<br>
>><br>
>> "becomeUnion(with other:Self)" --> "I become a union with other"<br>
>> "formUnion(with other:Self)" --> "I form a union with other"<br>
>><br>
>> No clear winner to me however when used in code "become" still feels more<br>
>> strongly mutating then "form": y.formUnion(with:x) or y.becomeUnion(with:x)<br>
>><br>
>> All in all the API would have mutating in front of it (at least for structs)<br>
>> and it wouldn't have a return type. It would become clear fairly quickly as<br>
>> a result (hence learned).<br>
>><br>
>> Just still not that happy with "form" but with use my mind would likely<br>
>> quickly adapt.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I think the best English verb for this construction is “emplace”:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/emplace" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.dictionary.com/browse/emplace</a><br>
>><br>
>> It means “to put in position”, and is always used with an object (the noun).<br>
>> It’s basically free from incorrect connotations because it’s obscure enough<br>
>> that most English speakers won’t know it, and is easily searchable for<br>
>> English- and non-English speakers alike.<br>
>><br>
>> - Doug<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> swift-evolution mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
>><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>