<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent@architechies.com" target="_blank">brent@architechies.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> On Oct 12, 2017, at 9:57 PM, Kevin Nattinger via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
</span><span class="">> That is reflected in the fact that over half the methods in the main Sequence definition* make no sense and are not well-defined unless there is a well-defined order to the sequence itself. What does it even mean to `dropFirst()` in a Set?<br>
<br>
</span>It means to skip the first element the set would normally have given you. Which element this will be may be arbitrary, but this is still not useless:<br>
<br>
set.dropFirst().reduce(set.<wbr>first!, …)<br>
<br>
Even elementsEqual(_:) does tell you something potentially valuable: Whether two instances will end up giving the same result when processed by an ordering-sensitive algorithm.<br>
<br>
We should change the name to something like orderEquals(_:), and maybe change the lexicographicallyPrecedes(_:) method to something analogous like orderPrecedes(_:), and then be done with it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fair enough suggestion as well.</div><div> </div></div></div></div>