mapMaybeM #183
Milestone
Comments
|
Have you seen the witherable package?
…On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:13 AM Andrew Martin ***@***.***> wrote:
Can I add mapMaybeM to vector? The type signature would be:
mapMaybeM :: (a -> m (Maybe b)) -> Vector a -> m (Vector b)
Although the list-equivalent of mapMaybeM is not in base, it's a pretty
common thing for people to write. I can see from some googling that it
exists in monad-extras
<https://hackage.haskell.org/package/monad-extras-0.6.0/docs/Control-Monad-Extra.html#v:mapMaybeM>,
extra
<https://hackage.haskell.org/package/extra-1.6/docs/Control-Monad-Extra.html#v:mapMaybeM>,
and in stack
<https://hackage.haskell.org/package/stack-1.0.0/docs/src/Data.Maybe.Extra.html>.
I bring this up because I think it highlights the utility of such a
function and the common expected semantics people seem to have for it.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#183>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAQwsq4PplMJdQOTB0QpMvTg2edcbgfks5sdBx7gaJpZM4PGAYH>
.
|
|
I have. Still, a more direct definition of |
|
Sorry... what do you mean by more definition ?
…On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:24 PM Andrew Martin ***@***.***> wrote:
I have. Still, the more definition of mapMaybeM would be more efficient
that using witherM.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#183 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAQwlQT105_I9lhnIWKte0lVisQYpOwks5sdJ3GgaJpZM4PGAYH>
.
|
|
Sorry, I corrected my comment on github. I meant to say that we could define a mapMaybeM in vector that is more efficient than witherM specialized to Vector and Maybe.
…Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 29, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Carter Tazio Schonwald ***@***.***> wrote:
Sorry... what do you mean by more definition ?
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:24 PM Andrew Martin ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I have. Still, the more definition of mapMaybeM would be more efficient
> that using witherM.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
>
>
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#183 (comment)>, or mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAQwlQT105_I9lhnIWKte0lVisQYpOwks5sdJ3GgaJpZM4PGAYH>
> .
>
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
Also witherable instance couldn't be defined for both unboxed and storable vectors |
|
I just noticed the absence of these functions again when I was working on something. Is it alright for me to add these to vector? |
|
Sure.
I’m hapoy to help with making sure we have a. Decent stream fusion rep if
needed.
One question is if a witherable style interface can be supported too?
…On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:46 PM Andrew Martin ***@***.***> wrote:
I just noticed the absence of these functions again when I was working on
something. Is it alright for me to add these to vector?
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#183 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAQwkvnM-Gxaqc6vA5j4Fhc7HDSBCxgks5tlT9NgaJpZM4PGAYH>
.
|
|
What do you mean by a witherable-style interface? Currently, What I'm proposing is: My constraint is stronger, but my understanding is that |
treeowl
added a commit
to treeowl/vector
that referenced
this issue
Nov 5, 2018
Add ```haskell mapMaybeM :: Monad m => (a -> m (Maybe b)) -> Vector a -> m (Vector b) imapMaybeM :: Monad m => (Int -> a -> m (Maybe b)) -> Vector a -> m (Vector b) ``` `mapMaybeM` is similar to `wither`, but the stream fusion framework seems to require that we use a `Monad` constraint rather than an `Applicative` one to get good performance. `imapMaybeM` is the indexed variant. Resolves haskell#183
Shimuuar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 10, 2020
Add ```haskell mapMaybeM :: Monad m => (a -> m (Maybe b)) -> Vector a -> m (Vector b) imapMaybeM :: Monad m => (Int -> a -> m (Maybe b)) -> Vector a -> m (Vector b) ``` `mapMaybeM` is similar to `wither`, but the stream fusion framework seems to require that we use a `Monad` constraint rather than an `Applicative` one to get good performance. `imapMaybeM` is the indexed variant. Resolves #183
Merged
lehins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 16, 2021
Add ```haskell mapMaybeM :: Monad m => (a -> m (Maybe b)) -> Vector a -> m (Vector b) imapMaybeM :: Monad m => (Int -> a -> m (Maybe b)) -> Vector a -> m (Vector b) ``` `mapMaybeM` is similar to `wither`, but the stream fusion framework seems to require that we use a `Monad` constraint rather than an `Applicative` one to get good performance. `imapMaybeM` is the indexed variant. Resolves #183
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Can I add
mapMaybeMtovector? The type signature would be:Although the list-equivalent of
mapMaybeMis not inbase, it's a pretty common thing for people to write. I can see from some googling that it exists inmonad-extras,extra, and instack. I bring this up because I think it highlights the utility of such a function and the common expected semantics people seem to have for it.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: