<< Back to previous view

[CLJ-1476] map-invert should use (empty m) instead of {} Created: 26/Jul/14  Updated: 27/Jul/14  Resolved: 27/Jul/14

Status: Closed
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.6
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Minor
Reporter: Gregory Schlomoff Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Declined Votes: 0
Labels: None


clojure.set/map-invert should reduce with (empty m) instead of {} so that it returns a map of the same type as its argument.

This is a trivial change and I'm willing to submit a patch if nobody opposes.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 26/Jul/14 8:43 AM ]

I don't think that always makes sense. Say you had a map of string to integers with a custom comparator created by sorted-map-by. If you use empty, you'd still have a map with a custom comparator which you would pour integer keys into and would likely throw a ClassCastException.

What is the use case that led you to this ticket?

Comment by Gregory Schlomoff [ 26/Jul/14 9:14 AM ]

Hello Alex, thanks for commenting.

My use case is that I have a custom type that implements IPersistentMap. If I use map-invert over it, I get a regular map back, which is problematic because regular maps don't allow multiple values for the same key, unlike my multimap implementation, so I loose information.

(map-invert (my-multimap :a 1, :b 1))
=> {1 :b} ; lost the (1 :a) entry because regular maps don't allow duplicate keys

Maybe a solution would be to make a version of map-invert that takes a map to insert the inverted entries into?

I'm not adamant over this, if you think there is no elegant solution for this issue we can close it.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 27/Jul/14 7:28 AM ]

I don't think this enhancement makes sense as written - there are cases where it would be a breaking change for existing code.

I do think your specified problem makes sense though. One enhancement might be to have a variant of map-invert (different arity or map-invert-into that took an additional map target param).

[CLJ-1474] `reduced` docstring should be more explicit Created: 25/Jul/14  Updated: 27/Jul/14  Resolved: 25/Jul/14

Status: Closed
Project: Clojure
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: Release 1.6
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Enhancement Priority: Major
Reporter: Jean Niklas L'orange Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Declined Votes: 0
Labels: docstring


The documentation for reduced is as follows:

Wraps x in a way such that a reduce will terminate with the value x

From what I gather, this does not specify whether the init value of a reduce could be a reduced value or not. As shown, the fact that the init value is a reduced value is ignored:

(reduce list (reduced 1) [2])
=> (#<Reduced@518a6aa: 1> 2)

The documentation should explicitly mention that a reduce call will not check if the initial value is reduced.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 25/Jul/14 9:09 AM ]

reduced creates a value that has special meaning as the output of invocation of the reducing function. Your example is about an input to that function. I don't see that this makes sense or needs documenting.

You can of course invent a situation where a (reduced 1) input is also the output but again, that seems like a pretty weird use case.

(reduce (fn [a v] a) (reduced 1) [2])
;; 1
Comment by Jean Niklas L'orange [ 25/Jul/14 12:10 PM ]

Right, that's my point. Nowhere in the documentation does it state that this does not apply to the initial value given to reduce. While you and I know this, I don't see how one can conclude this based on the current documentation.

Put differently, someone might wrongly assume that reduce is implemented as an optimised version of this:

(defn reduce [f init coll]
  (cond (reduced? init) (unreduced init)
        (empty? coll)    init
        :else           (recur f (f init (first coll))
                                 (rest coll))))

However, that's not the case, which I think is worth pointing out.

Comment by Alex Miller [ 25/Jul/14 5:01 PM ]

But it might apply to the initial value (as in my example where a reduced value is respected - note that doesn't return (reduced 1), just 1). Your suggested documentation change is talking about input values, but in my mind that leads to incorrect conclusions.

The only change that would make sense to me is clarifying where a "reduced" value is checked (on the result of applying the function passed to reduce). I think that's already implicit in the existing doc string myself. Since we have multiple implementations of "reduce", we have to tread carefully not to refer to explicitly to a particular one.

This use of a reduced initial value does not even make sense; why we would we confuse the docstring to warn about it?

Comment by Jean Niklas L'orange [ 27/Jul/14 7:20 AM ]

Ah, I get your point now, and I see how this would just create more confusion.

Thanks for the explanation.

Generated at Tue Jul 29 12:12:03 CDT 2014 using JIRA 4.4#649-r158309.