Documentation - filter function shows wrong type in overview

[NicoleRauch]

In the overview, the type for the filter function is specified as List, whereas in the documentation on the right-hand side it is given as Filterable.

[buzzdecafe]

Those annotations are serving two different roles in the docs.

List, on the left, is a bucket functions get thrown into so that people can find them quickly based on typical use.

Filterable, on the right, part of the type signature of filter. It is a constraint on the type f that says that whenever f appears in the following signature, it must be Filterable. f could be a list, but it may be a tree, or a stream, etc.

[CrossEye]

... and there would be no rationale for a category of one, where Filterable contains only Filter.

[NicoleRauch]

Hm, ok, sorry, I think I need to elaborate a little bit more on my usecase.

I had in mind that Ramda's filter is able to filter objects, not only lists. So I typed in filter into the search box. In the overview I saw that it only showed List - I was disappointed and thought I might have misremembered. Nonetheless, I clicked on the documentation, and by pure chance I spotted the example of filter being applied to an object.

So, my actual point is: I cannot see from the overview that filter can be applied to an object.

Does this make things clearer?

[CrossEye]

Ahh, that makes more sense. I would certainly support adding @category Object to the JSDoc tags for filter. And I have been playing with the documentation code to fix a bug. Perhaps I can also make a fix that allows multiple categories to be shown. (See, for instance, that the code for addIndex lists two categories but only one shows up in the docs. I can't imagine this would be too hard to fix.)

[buzzdecafe]

ah, gotcha, thank you for the clarification. IMO we should leave the type-sig as-is, but make the "bucket" more descriptive some how, e.g. "List, Object". Would that be satisfactory? I am not sure if we have any such multi-bucketed functions atm

[CrossEye]

timing...

[buzzdecafe]

i know right? at least we agree on a solution for a change 😛

[NicoleRauch]

Hey, sorry that I was not more descriptive up-front!

And great to see how like-minded you are ;-) Sounds like a perfect solution for me.