Should reduce take range as first argument?

monarch_dodra monarchdodra at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 08:02:10 PST 2012


On Thursday, 11 October 2012 at 12:34:17 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 October 2012 at 11:17:51 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> monarch_dodra:
>>
>>> Well, I went and implemented the option of doing it Range 
>>> first, then Seed, so that UFCS works.
>>
>> To reduce deprecation troubles there is a Bugzilla suggestion 
>> to call it fold():
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8755
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> Hum...
>
> I can go either way. Both have their ups and downs.
>
> *fold:
> **No ambiguity during a migration
> **No ambiguity regarding argument ordering
> **Duplicates function names
> **Changes a (relatively) established function name.
> **Higher code impact if we deprecate reduce
>
> *reduce
> **Will create some ambiguity, as both reduce(r,s) and reduce(s, 
> r) will be valid.
> **Will only impact reduce with seed if we deprecate the old 
> ordering.
>
> I wouldn't mind getting a nudge in the right direction if 
> anybody has a stance on this (Andrei?)

Anyone?

The pull has been open for a bit more than a month now, with no 
feedback...


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list