Yes. If we’re fussing over the verb tense, “compacted” is clearly correct. Where did “compacting” come from? The API guidelines state:
> Prefer to name the nonmutating variant using the verb’s past participle > (usually appending “ed”). …and (emphasis added): > When adding “ed” _is not grammatical because the verb has a direct object_, > name the nonmutating variant using the verb’s present participle, by > appending “ing.” Thus “joined” and “sorted” — also no-args methods where the verb has no direct object. BUT The existing methods “filter” and “reduce” seem the nearest peers to the proposed “compact,” and we do not call them “filtered” and “reduced.” Those are the methods with which the new one should maintain consistency. P > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > If we’re bikeshedding the verb tense then “compactMap” sounds right to me, > and adding “ing” would be needlessly verbose. > > For the non-mapping version, I’d lean toward “compacted”. However, we could > also postpone the debate over its spelling until such time as we are actually > ready to introduce it. > > Nevin > > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> On Dec 19, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I disagree. Let’s not reopen what is settled. “Compact” can be a noun just >> as “map” and “filter” can; as long as there are no in-place variants, there >> can be no ambiguity. >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 17:11 Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 8:56 AM, John McCall <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Therefore, SE-0187 is accepted, with the revision that the new name be >>> Sequence.compactMap(_:), and with the agreement that we will add >>> Sequence.compact() when it is possible to do so. >> >> >> I like `compact` as the basis for the name, but I hope the core team will >> consider whether the eventual nil-removal method should be called >> `compacting()`, and whether therefore this method should be called >> `compactingMap(_:)`. Prior art on the name `compact()` does exist, but I >> don't think it's strong enough to justify deviating from the API Guidelines. >> >> I don't think we need a full review on this tiny issue; five minutes of the >> core team's time should more than suffice. > > I agree with Brent. IMO we're firmly outside the domain of established > terms-of-art here (Ruby notwithstanding). > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
