Verbosity.

It's a task common across many project types and involves only 2
fundamental types in ES: array and object

Compare:

```
const cache = array.reduce((cache, element)=>{cache[element.id] = element;
return cache;}, {});
```

with

```
const cache = array.toObject(element=>element.id);
```

since the signature would offer additional optional `valueFromElement` and
`startingObject` parameters nobody loses anything.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 at 09:51 Barret Furton <barretfur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not embrace `Array.prototype.reduce` instead of trying to abstract it
> away?
>
> ```js
> const identity = a => a
>
> const toObject = (fk, fv = identity) =>
>     (acc, curr) => (acc[fk(curr)] = fv(curr), acc)
>
> const arr = [['a', '1'], ['b', '2'], ['c', '3']]
>
> arr.map(a => [a[0], parseInt(a[1], 10)])
>    .filter(a => a[0] !== 'c')
>    .reduce(toObject(a => a[0]), {}) // { a: 1, b: 2 }
> ```
>
> `reduce(toObject)` clearly communicates intent, and you can even provide
> an existing object for merging.
>
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My proposal was `Map.fromIterable(iterable, keyFromElement[,
>> valueFromElement[, existingMap]])` so it's not meant to be symmetrical with
>> `values` anyway. It was as an equivalent of `Object.fromIterable(iterable,
>> keyFromElement[, valueFromElement[, existingObjectToUse]])` as a means to
>> construct an object's keys and values from any iterable.
>>
>> I also was just thinking that both can perfectly coexist with
>> `Array.prototype.toObject(keyFromElement[, valueFromElement])` which has
>> the advantage of chain-ability after array transformation methods (like
>> `filter` etc.). Array is such a fundamental construct that I would find
>> myself using this one the most frequently
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 at 21:44 Alexander Jones <a...@weej.com> wrote:
>>
>>> `Map.fromIterable` takes an iterable of values, and a key function.
>>> Would a `Map.prototype.toIterable` return only the values - that's already
>>> `Map.prototype.values`? It feels like there is a symmetry issue here.
>>> Perhaps this could be `Map.fromValues`?
>>>
>>> Worth also remembering that compressing every possible use case down to
>>> an absolute minimum has a cost if the resultant language has too many
>>> features like this. I think `new Map(...kvps)` is a general solution that
>>> is actually good enough for "indexing" purposes, and means that people only
>>> have to internalise one method of construction via iterables.
>>>
>>> That said, a helper function to allow constructing map-like objects from
>>> arbitrary iterables would maybe be a bit more composable?
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> // This works with Map, WeakMap, Immutable.Map, etc.
>>> function* keyedBy(iterable, keyFn) {
>>>   for (const element of iterable) {
>>>     yield [keyFn(element), element];
>>>   }
>>> }
>>>
>>> const allThePeople = [{name: "Joe", age: 24}, {name: "Barbara", age:
>>> 43}, ...];
>>>
>>> const index1 =
>>>   new Map(keyedBy(allThePeople, _ => _.name));
>>>
>>> // c.f.
>>> const index2 =
>>>   Map.fromValues(allThePeople, _ => _.name);
>>> ```
>>>
>>> On 11 August 2017 at 10:26, Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of these, insertion ordering is the only one that may be compelling
>>>> enough to me when I require that, to overcome the disadvantages. I never
>>>> use the object prototype and I'm not convinced about the performance
>>>> aspect. I reiterate though that `Map.fromIterable(allThePeople,
>>>> person=>person.name)` is less verbose for the stated use case
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 at 11:55 Darien Valentine <valentin...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @Alexander The idea of a generalized `map` function (etc, I’m
>>>>> guessing) is
>>>>> appealing. From the way you talked about it, it sounds like there may
>>>>> have been
>>>>> past discussion on the topic. Are there any proposals for this or
>>>>> major ideas
>>>>> being batted around?
>>>>>
>>>>> > Why? What's the advantage? You lose at least the square bracket and
>>>>> dot
>>>>> > notations for access, as disadvantages, and I'm not aware of any
>>>>> advantages.
>>>>> > If there aren't any that compensate for the disadvantages, then it's
>>>>> a net
>>>>> > negative
>>>>>
>>>>> @Naveen — a handful of things. Objects are indeed a perfectly
>>>>> reasonable choice
>>>>> for modeling kvp collections a lot of the time. On the other hand,
>>>>> because
>>>>> objects in ES serve double duty as ways to model data and ways to
>>>>> "model code",
>>>>> they are not always ideal for the former case on account of the
>>>>> features that
>>>>> exist mainly to serve the second. Some examples of things that make
>>>>> maps useful:
>>>>> inherently iterable; no prototype chain access lookup; no collision
>>>>> with
>>>>> `Object.prototype` property name when hashing by arbitrary keys;
>>>>> potentially
>>>>> more efficient for situations where keys are frequently removed;
>>>>> `map.has()` is
>>>>> more straightforward than having to consider whether you want `key in`
>>>>> or
>>>>> `Object.hasOwnProperty` or which properties have been defined as
>>>>> enumerable or
>>>>> not; iteration order of entries is 1:1 with insertion order; and of
>>>>> course, keys
>>>>> can be of any type. Further, maps can be subclassed to constrain the
>>>>> types that
>>>>> they may hold or add other behaviors without needing to define custom
>>>>> Proxies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some general use cases: registries; hashing data where keys are from
>>>>> external
>>>>> input; kvp collections which are ordered; kvp collections which will
>>>>> be subject
>>>>> to later transformations; kvp collections to which new keys are
>>>>> frequently added
>>>>> or removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I hope that information is somewhat helpful, there are probably
>>>>> much more
>>>>> detailed resources online (including, I suspect, past discussions on
>>>>> this list)
>>>>> which could explain some of those things better or which include cases
>>>>> I haven’t
>>>>> thought of.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Reply via email to