What about default implementations for SequenceType?

[sharplet]

Notes regarding <*>: It doesn't seem possible to create a generic type constraint over a sequence of A -> B, so this version uses [A -> B] as a workaround (which is no problem when combined with <^>, which returns an Array). i.e., Swift borks at this:

func <*> <F: SequenceType, S: SequenceType, A, B where F.Generator.Element == A -> B, S.Generator.Element == A> (fs: F, source: S) -> [B] {
                                                                              ^^^^^^ NOPE

I didn't think too hard about style, naming, etc., that's all up for grabs! Just keen to know if you're into this idea.

[sharplet]

Hmm on second thought, it seems kind of weird to me that these implementations coerce everything into an Array. I'm thinking it might make more sense for this to just be specific to Array.

[gfontenot]

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. I think this is awesome, and would love to pull it in, but lets change everything to just be for Array. If people create their own SequenceType... types, then they could also add their own implementations for these functions.

[gfontenot]

Also, style-wise, lets keep with the T -> U naming scheme for the generics so that it matches with the built in type signature.

[sharplet]

Ok, pushed some changes! Let me know what you think.

[gfontenot]

Fantastic, thank you for this. Squashed and merged in 0755117

[sharplet]

🎉✊