Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 4, 2020. It is now read-only.

Add unionsWith? #55

Open
hdgarrood opened this issue Jan 26, 2016 · 10 comments
Open

Add unionsWith? #55

hdgarrood opened this issue Jan 26, 2016 · 10 comments

Comments

@hdgarrood
Copy link
Contributor

This function doesn't currently exist, but I think it could, and would potentially be useful:

unionsWith :: forall f k v. (Foldable f, Ord k) => (v -> v -> v) -> f (Map k v) -> Map k v

It's probably very simple to define this using what's already exported, but I think it's still useful to have these sorts of things defined for you.

@paf31
Copy link
Contributor

paf31 commented Jan 26, 2016

👍

@Cmdv
Copy link

Cmdv commented Dec 7, 2016

@paf31 just trying to pick up a ticket to get started with contributing, is this being worked on?

I assume this would need the unionsWith function added then exposed and tests?

@paf31
Copy link
Contributor

paf31 commented Dec 8, 2016

@Cmdv Yes, that's right, thanks!

@Cmdv
Copy link

Cmdv commented Dec 8, 2016

-- edit: am I wrong in thinking that it is already exposed? here

@paf31 cool I'll give it a go 😄

@hdgarrood
Copy link
Contributor Author

unionWith is slightly different, it only combines two maps. unionsWith could be used to take the union of an array with any number of maps inside it, for example.

@Cmdv
Copy link

Cmdv commented Dec 8, 2016

@hdgarrood just got pointed out to me on IRC by garyb as well!! I'll probably get stuck when it comes to testing but I'll crack on :)

@garyb
Copy link
Member

garyb commented Dec 8, 2016

For tests, one property to check off the top of my head: the keys of all the maps that were unioned should exist in the resulting map.

@garyb
Copy link
Member

garyb commented Dec 8, 2016

Also just to note, we can drop Ord from the signature with the very latest -maps release (it's about 10 minutes old):

unionsWith :: forall f k v. Foldable f => (v -> v -> v) -> f (Map k v) -> Map k v

@LiamGoodacre
Copy link
Contributor

@garyb how would that work??? 😕
With traverse it's fine as we're reconstructing a map in the same way we deconstruct it. But here we're having to combine maps - which means we need to insert the keys in the right place relative to each other.

@garyb
Copy link
Member

garyb commented Dec 8, 2016

Uh, yeah, I'm talking nonsense 😆... disregard that.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants