pyrtsa, 6 months ago

@ctietze Seems useful to define this in form of a subscript so you can form key paths into it (e.g. Binding syntax in SwiftUI!)

extension Set {
subscript(membershipOf element: Element) -> Bool {
get { contains(element) }
set {
if newValue {
insert(element)
} else {
remove(element)
}
}
}
}

chris, 6 months ago

@pyrtsa @ctietze I came here to say the same. Literally wrote that same code today.

ctietze, 6 months ago

@chris @pyrtsa That's a lovely idea!

pyrtsa, 6 months ago

@ctietze @chris Regarding naming, set[contains: element] is another logical argument naming.

CarstenSchridde, 6 months ago

@ctietze useItOrLoseIt

hawkrives, 6 months ago

@ctietze insert(if:), I guess?

teilweise, 6 months ago

@ctietze Maybe something like:

mutating func include(_ element: Element, if condition: Bool)

ctietze, 6 months ago

@teilweise Thanks!

I like 'include' a bit more than 'insert', because 'insert' is used to, well, insert, not to also remove.

'include' could be interpreted to make sure it's not included otherwise.

misc, 6 months ago

@ctietze @teilweise How about “ensure(… if condition:)”?

teilweise, 6 months ago

@misc @ctietze ensure IMO does not say anything about what to do if the condition is false.

Thinking about it again I would probably use

func include(_ element: E, onlyIf condition: Bool)

ctietze, 6 months ago

@teilweise @misc Yes, "onlyIf" is a great argument label here!

icanzilb, 6 months ago

@ctietze func if(_ condition: Bool, insert: Element) 😈

icanzilb, 6 months ago

@ctietze oh wait, it removes when it's false? 🤦🏽‍♂️ huh .. maybe func xor(_ condition: Bool, element: Element)

icanzilb, 6 months ago

@ctietze hmm ... maybe: insertOrRemove(_ value: Element, dependingOn: Bool) ?

ctietze, 6 months ago

@icanzilb I actually have that :) But it feels weird. Maybe it is weird? I could also have

element |> condition ? Set.insert : Set.remove |> theSet

Or something, which expresses that I'm just picking the operation depending on the condition. But the code base doesn't have that, sooo

mattgemmell, 6 months ago

@ctietze I suppose the semantics of this could be described as validation, or more loosely as requirement.

ctietze, 6 months ago

@mattgemmell Oh sure, "validation" does make sense in the way I learned the word from AppKit!