Improve consistency with other libraries

Ouverte
  • Quelque chose ne va pas ?
#184 8 commentaires 0 réactions 0 personnes assignées Voir sur GitHub

Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.

Évaluation

Difficulté
5/5
Temps estimé
Plus d'une semaine
Accessibilité débutants
15/100
Type d'issue
Refactorisation
Clarté
À clarifier
Activité
À l'abandon
Domaine
developer-experience

Piste de recherche

Start by reading the discussion in this issue and the linked issues #183, purescript-lists#178, and purescript-arrays#192 to understand the existing API drift. Then compare the List, Array, and Set APIs and the linked article’s arguments about type classes. The issue does not settle on a strategy, so a useful outcome would first require a decision about common interfaces and instance placement.

Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.

Description

status: needs more info

There's a lot in common among containers such as List, Array, Set, but their APIs drift out of sync. What's a good strategy to keep everything up to date?

We could continue to apply techniques such as #183 across these libraries, but that requires constant manual intervention.

Would it be appropriate to use more type classes to enforce common interfaces? Or should we avoid those, as suggested in https://harry.garrood.me/blog/down-with-show-part-1/ ? I still don't have a good understanding of how using more typeclasses leads to trouble.

For example we could have a SetLike type class that provides intersection, union, difference, etc. that List, Array, Set would all have an instance of. A similar strategy could have also helped us avoid https://github.com/purescript/purescript-lists/issues/178 and needing to remember to address https://github.com/purescript/purescript-arrays/issues/192. Interfaces could also cut down on the burden of maintaining duplicated documentation for all of these duplicated functions.

Another minor bit of messiness is that we currently have both intersect and intersection, depending on the container. Of course this can be fixed without resorting to typeclasses, but could also have been prevented by embracing more typeclasses.

Also, what determines whether a typeclass instance is defined in the type or the class? It seems somewhat arbitrary. For example:

  • Semigroup defines the instances for Array and Void
  • Void defines the instance for Show
  • Show defines the instance for Array

Things would be a bit more organized if the policy in core was to always define instances in the type, which would look like the following:

  • Void defines the instance for Show and Semigroup
  • Array defines instances for Show and Semigroup
Langage dominant
PureScript
Étoiles
61
Forks
50
Merge moyen
2 j 6 h
PR mergées (30 j)
1

Préparer son environnement

  • Aucun Dockerfile ni fichier Docker Compose
  • Propose un modèle de pull request
  • Aucun guide de contribution

Par où commencer

  1. Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
  2. Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
  3. Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
  4. Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.

Autres issues de purescript/purescript-lists

Toutes les issues de purescript/purescript-lists

Issues similaires

Plus d'issues DevTools

Recevez les nouvelles issues par e-mail

Un résumé court des issues GitHub adaptées aux débutants.