<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>How about this:</div><div><br></div><div> array.removeEvery(3)</div><div> array.removeEvery{ $0 > 3 }</div><div><br></div><div>I think it preserves the meaning while it reads nicely. However "every" has no precedent in other functions, as far as I know.</div><div><br>Am 10.04.2017 um 04:32 schrieb Ben Cohen via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 8, 2017, at 5:41 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <<a href="mailto:brent@architechies.com" class="">brent@architechies.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 8, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Xiaodi Wu 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=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">+1. Perfect. Let's not bikeshed this and get it done!</span></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Sorry, I'm going to have to insist on bikeshedding.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">`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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I think removeAll(of:) works well for the equatable value version.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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).</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">The main shortcoming I can see is that if you see:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>array.removeAll(3)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Personally don’t feel good about an unlabelled version. It doesn’t read right. Remove all three what?</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">You might think `3` is either an index or a count. But neither of those actually make sense:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">* 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.</div><div class="">* 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?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(But if you really do think this is insurmountable, `removeAll(of: 3)` *is* impossible to misinterpret and fits in better than `removeAll(equalTo:)`.)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(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.)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal; border-spacing: 0px;"><div class=""><div style="font-size: 12px; " class="">-- </div><div style="font-size: 12px; " class="">Brent Royal-Gordon</div><div style="font-size: 12px; " class="">Architechies</div></div></span>
</div>
<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>swift-evolution mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>