Mention general conversions for untupling #14315
Conversation
| import scala.language.implicitConversions | ||
| inline transparent implicit def `enable untupling`(f: (Int, Int) => Int): ((Int, Int)) => Int = | ||
| p => f(p._1, p._2) | ||
| xs.map(combine) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about xs.map(Function.tupled(combine)) instead? That seems more usual than a transparent inline implicit conversion...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was to address "why isn't my function value adapted?" and show that the expected conversion works (and is equivalent or as efficient as expected with transparent inline). I accidentally switched the order of modifiers after seeing them printed that way in printed tree output. Ha.
Also considering the question of existing conversions as less efficient. BTW, I don't insist that this is the best clarification.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That makes sense and I agree that the inline definition should be more efficient, but I think I would still be more comfortable merging a more "straightforward" solution, it seems like it would be a better fit for parameter-untupling.md!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
updated the description, keeping the conversion but on the down low.
som-snytt
force-pushed
the
tweak/untupling
branch
from
1e9499c
to
58c795a
Compare
|
LGTM, thanks! |
Addresses the question at #897 (comment)
This is to address "why isn't my function value adapted?"
It shows literal
xs.map(_ + _), etamaticxs.map(f), explicitxs.map(g.tupled)and also user-defined conversion.The conversion is equivalent to the untupling adaptation, and improves on unspecialized
tupled. (The tuples themselves are also currently treated as unspecialized, but that is targeted for improvement.) However, no benchmarks were run.