Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add methods to reduce, specialized for merge on Dict #26440

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 4, 2019
Merged

Add methods to reduce, specialized for merge on Dict #26440

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
dc24034
add method to `reduce`, specialized for `merge` (#21672)
jlapeyre Mar 12, 2018
af95cf8
Use standard function syntax and more explicit name
nalimilan Jul 2, 2018
b38063d
Fix function name
nalimilan Jul 2, 2018
e4ffd5c
Merge branch 'master' into gjl/merge
nalimilan Apr 1, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions base/dict.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -696,6 +696,12 @@ end

filter!(f, d::Dict) = filter_in_one_pass!(f, d)

function reduce(::typeof(merge), items::Vector{<:Dict})
Copy link
Member

@rfourquet rfourquet Apr 3, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any reason not to allow AbstractVector{<:Dict} ?
(sorry for a last minute comment!)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIRC it triggered ambiguities (that's probably buried in a comment above). It would be useful to try to generalize, but for now I'd say it's already an improvement.

K = mapreduce(keytype, promote_type, items)
V = mapreduce(valtype, promote_type, items)
return reduce(merge!, items; init=Dict{K,V}())
end

struct ImmutableDict{K,V} <: AbstractDict{K,V}
parent::ImmutableDict{K,V}
key::K
Expand Down
17 changes: 17 additions & 0 deletions test/dict.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -899,6 +899,23 @@ end
@test d1 == Dict("A" => 1, "B" => 15, "C" => 28)
end

@testset "Dict reduce merge" begin
function f(i::Vector{<:Dict}, o)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should be check_merge ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Argh, I knew editing online was risky...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree check_merge is better. I modeled the name f on a similar function in the file.

r1 = reduce(merge, i)
r2 = merge(i...)
t = typeof(o)
@test r1 == o
@test r2 == o
@test typeof(r1) == t
@test typeof(r2) == t
end
check_merge([Dict(1=>2), Dict(1.0=>2.0)], Dict(1.0=>2.0))
check_merge([Dict(1=>2), Dict(2=>Complex(1.0, 1.0))],
Dict(2=>Complex(1.0, 1.0), 1=>Complex(2.0, 0.0)))
check_merge([Dict(1=>2), Dict(3=>4)], Dict(3=>4, 1=>2))
check_merge([Dict(3=>4), Dict(:a=>5)], Dict(:a => 5, 3 => 4))
end

@testset "misc error/io" begin
d = Dict('a'=>1, 'b'=>1, 'c'=> 3)
@test_throws ErrorException 'a' in d
Expand Down