Syntax for function1 kleisli-composition #3396
Conversation
|
We could skip the wrapping in |
|
In terms of test, I think some simple doctests would be enough I think (along with the syntax tests you already wrote) :) |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3396 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 92.49% 92.67% +0.17%
==========================================
Files 378 379 +1
Lines 7956 7984 +28
Branches 227 230 +3
==========================================
+ Hits 7359 7399 +40
+ Misses 597 585 -12
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
valenterry
changed the title
Addressed that and changed it to use |
| * res2: Option[Int] = None | ||
| * }}} | ||
| */ | ||
| def >=>[C](g: B => F[C]): A => F[C] = a => FlatMap[F].flatMap(f(a))(g) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we @inline this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my two cents here, the other syntax ops are not inlined in general so I wouldn't do it.
|
I think this would benefit from also having non-symbolic names - maybe |
Sure! Any preference for the method name? |
|
I like |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3396 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.49% 91.60% -0.89%
==========================================
Files 378 382 +4
Lines 7956 8307 +351
Branches 227 218 -9
==========================================
+ Hits 7359 7610 +251
- Misses 597 697 +100 |
This PR aims to add syntax for easily composing functions without wrapping them into
Kleislimanually, based on a gitter conversation: https://gitter.im/typelevel/cats?at=5e971c478821056d3e124e4a (@Daenyth @LukaJCB)I looked into the tests, but I'm unsure what tests to write for the syntax methods that are added in this PR. Optimally I would like to write a property test / law in the style offorAll{ f >=> g <-> Kleisli(f) >>> Kleisli(g) }TODO