Add tapWithF to Kleisli #2252
Add tapWithF to Kleisli #2252
Conversation
| @@ -75,6 +75,9 @@ final case class Kleisli[F[_], A, B](run: A => F[B]) { self => | |||
| def tapWith[C](f: (A, B) => C)(implicit F: Functor[F]): Kleisli[F, A, C] = | |||
| Kleisli(a => F.map(run(a))(b => f(a, b))) | |||
|
|
|||
| def flatTapWith[C](f: (A, B) => F[C])(implicit F: FlatMap[F]): Kleisli[F, A, C] = | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we have this function flatTap on anything with a FlatMap, but it does not seem consistent with this:
cats/core/src/main/scala/cats/FlatMap.scala
Line 142 in ff7bd40
it discards the value inside the F[C].
I am concerned we don't have a clear meaning associated with tap and flatTap.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with you @johnynek, but I couldn't come up with a better name for this one (flatTapWith felt "consistent" with the tapWith function a couple of lines above)
I'm definitely open to suggestions on the name :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tapWithF?
We could rewrite (A, B) => F[C] to A => (B => F[C]) if we had use F.pure on the result we could have done: A => F[B => F[C]]
Then this method could be written as ap followed by flattenF or something.
Just noodling around to think about naming.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like tapWithF, thanks for the suggestion @johnynek!
I already pushed the change 👍
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2252 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.96% 94.96% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 333 333
Lines 5797 5798 +1
Branches 221 218 -3
==========================================
+ Hits 5505 5506 +1
Misses 292 292
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
marcodippy
force-pushed
the
addFlatTapWith
branch
from
4a2abc1
to
045c101
Compare
No description provided.