swift-evolution Digest, Vol 5, Issue 35

(Terrence Katzenbaer) #1

+1 for initializer over mapValues. One downside is that it’s impossible or very difficult to find documentation for Swift types (e.g. Dictionary) using Google, but I don’t think that this should impede considering this implementation.

-1 for god methods. My concern is probably trivial but... if having a parameter that takes a closure to deal with key conflicts is an absolute necessity, then I propose it being optional or having an version of the initializer without it.


Message: 22
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 06:58:23 -0700
From: Jonathan Hull <jhull@gbis.com>
To: swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org>
Cc: dabrahams@apple.com
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] mapValues
Message-ID: <BEF0657E-BCAD-4AFA-A035-6E3D92B7A58B@gbis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I am definitely +1 for adding the initializer in any case.

I would like to see it (based on Nate’s suggestion) have a “merge" parameter which takes a closure of (Key, Value, Value)throws->Value, which would be called to choose a value whenever a repeated key is encountered. That parameter should have a default value which just traps. That way the default behavior is to trap when a key is repeated, but it can still be overridden with a more appropriate behavior for the situation (e.g. keeping the first value, keeping the last, averaging them, etc…)

That said, I would still also like to see the functionality of mapValues (whatever it ends up being called) in the standard library. It easily applies to 80-90% of my use cases, and allowing re-mapping of keys adds a lot of complexity which must be carefully considered (there is a lot more which can go wrong). As swift is a practical language, it would be nice to have a quick and foolproof way to do this common task.


on Tue Apr 12 2016, Jonathan Hull <swift-evolution at swift.org <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> wrote:

I would really like to see something like the following added to the standard

extension Dictionary {

func mapValues<U>(transform:(Key,Value)->U)->[Key:U] {
var output:[Key:U] = [:]
for (k,v) in self {
output[k] = transform(k,v)
return output


It comes up enough that I have had to add it to pretty much every one of my
projects. I also don’t feel comfortable adding it to my frameworks, since I
figure a lot of people are also adding something like this to their projects,
and I don’t want to cause a conflict with their version. Prime candidate for the
standard library.

I like calling it ‘mapValues' as opposed to providing an override for map, since
it makes the specific behavior more clear. I would expect ‘map' to possibly map
the keys as well (though there are issues where the new keys overlap). I suppose
you could just have a bunch of overrides for map if the compiler becomes good
enough at differentiating return types: (Value)->(Value), (Key,Value)->Value,
(Key, Value)->(Key,Value)

I agree that we need a way to do this, and was surprised when what I
tried didn't work. This should work:

Dictionary(d.lazy.map { (k, v) in (k, transform(v)) })

We should have a proposal that makes the constructor work* if we don't
already have one.

I'm inclined against building specialized variants of basic algorithms
into particular collections, though. Could be talked out of it if the
use-case is strong enough.