Proposition: optional override to is_instance(x,t) to support both types and str in the same function

[kessido]

splitting the is_instance, and is_instance_str seemed like a complicated solution imho, I'm not too keen with the override, but I find it much more appealing in the later uses imo.

Then again, just a proposition.

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[jph00]

I think this is a good idea, but let's change the definition of rinstance, which we already have, instead of replacing isinstance. Does that sound OK?

[kessido]

I think this is a good idea, but let's change the definition of rinstance, which we already have, instead of replacing isinstance. Does that sound OK?

Sounds ok
I find it less ram consuming (metaphorically) to add it to the base function as another functionality~

[kessido]

I think this is a good idea, but let's change the definition of rinstance, which we already have, instead of replacing isinstance. Does that sound OK?

Another option btw, is to combine both risinstance and isinstance. e.g:
https://github.com/kessido/kesscore/blob/3657275b4e69cf708a5bcdbde6ab7afd583cdda9/kesscore/functional.py#L45
but that just a matter of taste, I find it more appealing to write:
L(1,2,3).map(isinstance(int)).all()

[hamelsmu]

@kessido where did you end up on this PR? Just want to follow up. I see some discussions about changing rinstance but not sure I see any commits after this. Thanks

[jph00]

Since this had gotten rather stale I implemented it myself. risinstance now handles strings and lists of strings. isinstance_str is still there, but just to support array_equal.