-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Add Enumerable#find_value
#14893
Open
jgaskins
wants to merge
2
commits into
crystal-lang:master
Choose a base branch
from
jgaskins:add-enumerable-find_value
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Add Enumerable#find_value
#14893
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it would be of some benefit to have the method strictly typed rather than leaving the compiler to infer everything. We had a discussion in the Discord server and concluded it would mean having an overload specifically for a
nil
/no-default case, but I think that would be better overall:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a fan of explicit types, but this is still type inference. What benefit are you seeing here that I'm not seeing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I find that the explicitness of method signatures are more useful even if there is no real difference between them. It's also clear what the return type of the method is as both I and another Crystal user initially misinterpreted the return type as being the value of the enumerable type (i.e.
T
). When taking into accountEnumerable#find
which has an identical signature, it makes sense to be explicit here to reduce confusion.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that it's more explicit, but I don't know if I agree that it reduces confusion. To my eyes, it just looks like a jumble of type placeholders.
Does the doc comment provide insufficient disambiguation between it and
find
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think type restrictions are always helpful as they document the expectations of input and ouput types. Even if it's a bit complicated to express.
IMO we should ideally always write down all type restrictions as part of the API documentation.
As a comment on the suggested format, different names
T -> V
andT -> U
are confusing. They're doing the same thing, so both proc types should use the same name for their output type.