<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 23, 2016, at 12:39 AM, David Hart <<a href="mailto:david@hartbit.com" class="">david@hartbit.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div style="font-family: Palatino-Roman; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><div class=""><b class="">- for test in removeFirstTests.filter({ $0.numberToRemove == 1 }) {</b></div><div class=""><b class="">+ for test in removeFirstTests.filter(</b></div><div class=""><b class="">+ suchThat: { $0.numberToRemove == 1 }</b></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The difference between `filter` and `forEach` is that `forEach` is explicitly </div><div class="">procedural while `filter` is functional. I do not like functional chainable</div><div class="">calls being modified to use explicit external labels in this way. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'd prefer no label here.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Quick aside. Eric, if you prefer no label here, why did you not also prefer no labels for contains and elementsEqual? They also have very functional. But if we must have a label, I’d vote for `where`.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>contains and elementsEqual both return Booleans which are almost never chained.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-- E</div><div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>