Add biFlatMap to EitherT #2573
Add biFlatMap to EitherT #2573
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2573 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.14% 95.14% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 361 361
Lines 6630 6633 +3
Branches 289 284 -5
==========================================
+ Hits 6308 6311 +3
Misses 322 322
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| @@ -77,6 +77,13 @@ final case class EitherT[F[_], A, B](value: F[Either[A, B]]) { | |||
| applicativeG: Applicative[G]): G[EitherT[F, C, D]] = | |||
| applicativeG.map(traverseF.traverse(value)(axb => Bitraverse[Either].bitraverse(axb)(f, g)))(EitherT.apply) | |||
|
|
|||
| def biFlatMap[AA >: A, BB >: B](fa: A => EitherT[F, AA, BB], | |||
| fb: B => EitherT[F, AA, BB])(implicit F: Monad[F]): EitherT[F, AA, BB] = | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| fb: B => EitherT[F, AA, BB])(implicit F: Monad[F]): EitherT[F, AA, BB] = | |
| fb: B => EitherT[F, AA, BB])(implicit F: FlatMap[F]): EitherT[F, AA, BB] = |
Relaxed constraint of the Monad to FlatMap in biFlatMap Fixes #2438
|
@ceedubs is it possible to rerun travis' build? It indicates some memory problem of host rather than issues with my code. |
|
@ceedubs, ready for merge. :) |
|
We have a 2-approver rule for merging non-documentation PRs. @kailuowang or @LukaJCB would one of you want to take a look? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @agajek.
Maybe using EitherT.leftT and EitherT.rightT would have been a little bit simpler in the tests?
|
A question on naming, should this actually be |
| fb: B => EitherT[F, AA, BB])(implicit F: FlatMap[F]): EitherT[F, AA, BB] = | ||
| EitherT(F.flatMap(value) { | ||
| case Left(a) => fa(a).value | ||
| case Right(a) => fb(a).value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would not it be more intuitive to say case Right(b) => fb(b).value at L.84 to match with the type B fb expects?
Fixes #2438