Skip to content

Conversation

@chriseidhof
Copy link
Contributor

Opening the PR so that the proposal can already be commented on. There is still an active discussion going on about the naming, but the rest is pretty clear and agreed upon.

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
# Feature name

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't forget to add a name.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@chriseidhof chriseidhof changed the title [wip] Reduce with inout Reduce with inout Jan 24, 2017
Copy link
Contributor Author

@chriseidhof chriseidhof left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is ready for review!

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
# Feature name
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@Coeur
Copy link
Contributor

Coeur commented Feb 20, 2017

Replacing existing reduce with the new one would be, in my opinion, preventing the issue of having years of discussions about why "we shouldn't use legacy reduce". Breaking Swift 3 code is not a big cost to pay to get a nice Swift 4 code.

In other words, while I welcome a mutating reduce, I'm against keeping two versions of reduce in the language.

@airspeedswift airspeedswift merged commit 608d4af into swiftlang:master Apr 14, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants