Introducing Sequence.last?

[Karl]

You're right that Sequence is very unclear. We've discussed removing it in the past:

[Pitch] Make Collection Super-Convenient and Retire Sequence

Let's Retire Sequence TL;DR Evaluated against its documented purpose, Sequence is not pulling its weight. It creates pitfalls for library users and complexity for everyone. That said, defining a Sequence is super easy. We should make it that easy to define a new Collection. Note: for earlier discussion on this topic, please see this post and, if you have the fortitude, the foregoing thread. Costs of Sequence In Its Current Form The biggest problem with Sequence is that it is so easily …

This snippet is particularly relevant to this discussion:

@dabrahams

What about methods like suffix(n) ?

Today, x.suffix(n) is supported by Collection with performance O( count ). We probably shouldn’t have done that. This method was originally defined only for BidirectionalCollection with O( n ) performance, but when we discovered that it was possible to implement it for Sequence (with reduced performance guarantees) we went ahead. However, that meant that Collection , which only had forward iteration, had to support it too. I’m not sure if there are other Collection methods whose existence there was driven by trying to provide maximum functionality for Sequence , but this one, at least, should be reconsidered.