Renaming Trailing-closure Functions in the Standard Library

[cukr]

// this reads well 
array.first(where: { criteria })
// but this is not at all clear 
array.first { criteria }

I agree, second one isn't good. Thankfully we can write it the first way!
There is a solution in place already, so why do we have to change the stdlib?

@Ben_Cohen

applying the beneficial argument label to the base name instead would make these considerably more readable regardless of whether the trailing closure is applied:

I don't see how firstWhere(...) is more readable than first(where: ...).

@Ben_Cohen

your [meaningful] trailing closure label (...) will be left off 90% of the time

I don't understand why this. Some labels are useful enough to include it in your code. Some labels are not. That's why I include some of the labels in my code, and don't include some of them. For example I when I call first(where:) function, I always write the label down.

Current situation:

  +----------------------------------+ 
  |Is the label meaningful enough    | 
  |to include it in your source code?| 
  +----------------------------------+ 
    |                              |   
    |                              |   
   Yes                             |   
    |                             No   
    v                              |   
 Include it in your source code    |   
                                   v  
                                Skip it

What you are suggesting:

  +----------------------------------+ 
  |Is the label meaningful enough    | 
  |to include it in your source code?| 
  +----------------------------------+ 
           |           |               
           |           |               
          Yes         No               
           |           |               
           V           V               
    Include it in your source code  

Would that be better for people that think that these labels are useful? I don't think so, they should be writing them already. Would that be better for people that think that these labels should be skipped? I don't think so, you would be forcing them to go against what they want.

@Ben_Cohen

Additionally, we have the case of SE-0220 which introduced Sequence.count(where: (Element)->Bool) , which had to be backed out because the basename was ambiguous with Collection.count , leading to performance problems in the type checker:

I feel like Require parameter names when referencing to functions is a better solution for that. Renaming specific functions one by one doesn't solve the root of the problem.