-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Make unionWith
more flexible
#10
Comments
|
I didn't spot it either 😄. Might be worth having as |
or And this would be a better type for merge, I guess. Now can I stop thinking about this, please?! merge :: forall k u v w. Ord k => (k -> These u v -> Maybe w) -> Map k u -> Map k v -> Map k w |
Just remembered this discussion too: purescript-contrib/purescript-these#21 |
Slightly related: I just made pr #15 to add intersection and intersectionWith. |
For the record here is advanced API used in Haskell: Data.Map.Merge.Strict. Would such an API be considered if implemented? |
Let's forget about my previous comment. I'm focusing on the type signature from @fehrenbach. Here is what I think could be a reference :
What do you think? |
How about?
|
Seems like this would work to me. |
@JordanMartinez but probably we should eliminate |
@xgrommx Let's say that could be fused, would the type signature change of any of these functions? If not, then couldn't that be done in a future PR? |
@JordanMartinez what do u mean about signature? |
@xgrommx Meaning, the type signature for
|
As per @fehrenbach in #5 (comment):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: