>
> Isn't this just another implementation of a dictionary?
> Aren't there enough of those in stdlib?
I guess I wasn't clear. I have no interest at all in implementing a
dict. We have half a dozen different key value style stores in various
libraries distributed with erlang. My goal is to provide a common
interface to those implementations. I have a ton of places I just care
to take a 'map' and don't care about the actual implementation. I want
to support that use case instead of specializing on gb_trees, or dict
or what have you.
> How is this better?
Its not better, simply a common interface to these types.
> At least use the same functions names as in the dict API for similar
> functions.
>
> Is the set() type in the specs the same as stdlib:set() or are You
> defining Your own.
sets:set() in stdlib is a specific implementation of a set. I am not
planning on defining sets.
> I am not that happy with the name map. Since it seems to be the
> same thing as what is normally called dictionaries in Erlang I
> think it would be better to use that. Or relation since that is what it
> is in a mathematical sense.
That seems reasonable to me, I think dictionary is probably best
though its a bit more typing. Relation is more correct but I think its
probably less intuitive.
> Also map is, at least for me, to to closely coupled to the higher order
> function. I suspect that before the week is over You are going to add
> the function map/2 and that will just look silly map:map(Fun,Map).
Yes I agree in this case. That particular name collision bothered me
as well. This why its good to ask for comments ;)
> See more inline below.
>
> /Anders
>
>>
>> -opaque map(_KeyT, _ValueT) :: term().
>>
>> %% @doc empties the map.
>> -spec clear() -> map().
>>
>
> Shouldn't this be
> -spec new() -> map() instead?
> Or is this really a mutable datatype?
> In which case I suppose it should be
> -spec clear(map()) -> map()
> Or is it just me not understanding parameterized modules?
Semantically its exactly the same. Its probably worth just having new,
and discarding clear sense it is less meaningful in a language without
mutation.
>> %% @doc returns a boolean indicating if this map has the specified key
>> -spec has(term()) -> boolean().
>
> Should be has_key
Probably to be clear what it actually does.
>
>>
>> %% @doc check to see if the specified value exists in the map
>> -spec has_value(Term()) -> boolean().
>>
>> %% @doc return the key value pairs as a set of {key, value} pairs
>> -spec as_set() -> set().
>>
>> %% @doc get the item from the may
>> -spec get(term()) -> term().
>>
> define types
> key() = term()
> value() = term()
> -spec get(key()) -> value().
Ok, good idea.
>> %% @doc return all keys in the map as a set
>> -spec keys(term()) -> set().
>
> What is the parameter here?
lol, nothing. A fat finger on my part.
>>
>> %% @doc Add a value to the map
>> -spec put(term(), term()) -> map().
>
> -spec add(term(), term()) -> map().
> To match remove
>
>>
>> %% @doc remove a value from the map
>> -spec remove(term()) -> map().
>>
>> %% @doc get the current number of key value pairs in the map
>> -spec size() -> number().
>
> integer() instead of number()
ok. also good recommendation. I will, post a new spec tomorrow along
with the interface and implementation.
>>
>> %% @doc get all the values in the map as a sequence
>> -spec values() -> sequence().
>>
>> As you can tell from the specs I am going to define sets and sequences
>> very quickly as well.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Merritt
>> Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan
>> http://twitter.com/ericbmerritt
>> http://erlware.org
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "erlware-dev" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected].
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "erlware-dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"erlware-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
