Skip to content
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

Increase C# group_by #309

Closed
allphfa opened this issue Sep 21, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Increase C# group_by #309

allphfa opened this issue Sep 21, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@allphfa
Copy link

allphfa commented Sep 21, 2018

Add a group_by that does not duplicate key.

bors bot added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 20, 2020
465: Add into_grouping_map for efficient group-and-fold operations r=jswrenn a=SkiFire13

Adds two functions on the `Itertools` trait, `into_grouping_map` and `into_grouping_map_by`. 

`into_grouping_map` expects an iter of `(K, V)` where the `K` will be used as key and `V` as value. 
`into_grouping_map_by` expect only an iter of `V` as values, the keys will be calculated using the provided functions. 

Both of them return a `GroupingMap`, which is just a wrapper on an iterator. Since it introduces a lot of related methods I thought it would be better to separate them from the `Itertools` trait. This also prevents duplicating every method for the `_by` version.

All of these functions have in common the fact they perform efficient group-and-fold operations without allocating temporary vecs like you would normally do if you used `into_group_map` + `into_iter` + `map` + `collect::<HashMap<_, _>>()`.

Here's the possible issues I can see, I would like to hear some feedback before trying to fix any of them:
- name: I initially though of `grouping_by` which is the java/kotlin equivalent, but later changed it to `into_grouping_map` to match the already existing `into_group_map` and to differentiate from `group_by`;
- `fold_first`: the equivalent function in the `Itertools` trait is `fold1` but there's an unstable stdlib function that does the same thing and is called `fold_first`. I decided to be consistent with the stdlib;
- `minmax` return type is the already existing `MinMaxResult`, but the `NoElements` variant is never returned. I didn't want to duplicate that struct thinking it could cause confusion (and if I did what name could I have chosen?);
- `sum` and `product`: They dont' use the `Sum` and `Product` traits but instead require `V: Add<V, Output=V>` and `V: Mul<V, Output=V>`. They're pretty much a wrapper around `fold_first`. I don't really know if they're meaningful or if I should just remove them;
- almost every closure takes as one of the parameters a reference to the key. It bloats them a bit, but could be useful if computing the key is a relatively expensive operation.
- no `scan` function. Even though it is an iterator adapter I could sort of "collect" it into a `Vec` (more like extend) but I don't really see an use for this;
- ~~no integration tests for the `_by` and `_by_key` versions of `min`, `max` and `minmax`. To be fair I was a bit lazy, but I also couldn't find any integration test for the normal `minmax_by` and `minmax_by_key` so I though it was fine;~~ added;
- no benchmark (I don't think it is required but probably would be cool to compare this with `into_group_map`;
- I didn't want to touch the rest of the library, but I guess we could implement `into_group_map` in terms of `into_grouping_map`?

Related issues: #457, #309
Related PR: #406 (in particular relates to the `into_group_map_by_fold` function that was proposed but later removed)

Co-authored-by: SkiFire13 <skifire13.1@gmail.com>
@Philippe-Cholet
Copy link
Member

Philippe-Cholet commented Feb 7, 2024

@allphfa Hi, I'm not familiar with C# so I'm wondering if #465 solved your issue (in which case I would close this). If not, provide more intel would be appreciated.

EDIT: His account seems inactive. I'm closing this but would reopen if needed.

@Philippe-Cholet Philippe-Cholet closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Feb 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants