Suggestion: List pop function rename

[Norlock]

The list.pop function drops from the beginning of a list, but usually pop means to remove at the end of an array / stack / queue / list and returning that value. Maybe its better to rename this function to something else to prevent confusion.

Current implementation:
https://hexdocs.pm/gleam_stdlib/gleam/list.html#pop

[lpil]

What might you call these functions?

[Norlock]

Maybe just remove?

remove ->

fn remove(list: List(a), fun: fn (Int, a) -> Bool) -> #(Result(a), List(a))

pop ->

fn pop(list: List(a)) -> #(Result(a), List(a)) // returns a list without the last element

filter_index ->

fn filter_index(list: List(a), fun: fn (a, Int) -> Bool) -> List(a)

But I would also remove some of the current remove functions like (drop, drop_while, take, take_while, rest), you can do already so much if you use the filter / filter_index functions like:

list.filter_index(some_list, fn (_item, idx) { idx < 4 }) 

[lpil]

Lists are not suitable for removing from the end so we would not support that function, and that are not for indexing so we will not add any index related functions.

Do you have examples for the name "remove" being used for this in other languages? If not wouldn't it have the same problem?

[Norlock]

Removing the last item is indeed not really needed as a function, however this is what I would expect the function pop to do if it would exist.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/vec/struct.Vec.html#method.remove
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/remove
https://www.w3schools.com/java/ref_arraylist_remove.asp

Has a remove function which works based on index, but the pop here is actually doing the same, the first result which matches the predicate is removed. Or you can name it remove_first maybe

[lpil]

None of those functions named remove are the same, so it would be the same problem if we used that name.

You must never use indexes with lists.

[ethanthoma]

I also agree pop is a bad name. It's more like a find_remove type of function since pop functions don't typically have a predicate function

[lpil]

That makes sense, but find_map_remove seems like too unwieldy a name at that point. It would be good to have something more concise.