Proposed documentation and unit tests for #2396 #2401
Conversation
JLRishe
force-pushed
the
applySpecIssue2396
branch
from
68bcbb6
to
a44aca3
Compare
| * producing the values for these properties. | ||
| * @return {Function} A function that returns an object of the same structure | ||
| * as `spec', with each property set to the value returned by calling its | ||
| * @sig {k: ((a, b, ..., m) -> v)} | [((a, b, ..., m) -> v)] -> ((a, b, ..., m) -> {k: v} | [v]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not really sure how to write a good signature for this with its recursive nature as well as the variadic functions. But this one simply confuses me.
I don't know if we're better with a list of related signatures, but they would at least individually be much simpler:
applySpec :: {k: a -> v} -> (a -> {k: v}
:: {k: (a, b) -> v} -> ((a, b) -> {k, v})
:: {k: (a, b, c) -> v} -> ((a, b, c) -> {k, v})
:: ...
:: {[(a -> v)] -> (a -> [v])
:: {[((a, b) -> v)] -> ((a, b) -> [v])
:: {[((a, b, c) -> v)] -> ((a, b, c) -> [v])
:: ...But that still does not capture the recursive nature of this. I now very much regret that this is recursive; we seem to have abandoned our focus on simplicity here.
|
@CrossEye Shall we close this for now? |
|
@CrossEye I'm tempted to reopen as we have docs and test cases. Perhaps we can simply drop the type signature for now? |
|
Reopened, but with the focus on the signature, I don't remember ever really looking over those examples and docs. I like the I won't have time this evening, but I'll try soon to make suggested changes. |
#2396