This is an alternative site for discovering Elm packages. You may be looking for the official Elm package site instead.
Experimental Sorter/Dict/Set API.
version 2.1.0
license BSD-3-Clause
native-modules False
elm-version 0.18.0 <= v < 0.19.0
Tag 2.1.0
Committed At 2018-11-16 00:45:44 UTC
elm-lang/core 5.0.0 <= v < 6.0.0 5.1.1

README

elm-sorter-experiment

It's right there in the name, but just to be totally clear about it:

⚠️ THIS IS AN EXPERIMENT! ⚠️

I have a hypothesis that these may be good ideas, but they may not be! The purpose of this package is to facilitate trying them out and learning more.

Goal of the experiment

There have been several times in Elm's history that a language-level design constraint has led to the discovery of a nicer API.

  1. JSON decoders emerged from not having language-level support for JSON FFI or deriving. The resulting API has proven nice enough that other languages without Elm's language-level design constraints have adopted it. (ReasonML has added language-level support for JSX, so adding native support for JSON decoding would certainly be in bounds there.)
  2. The Elm Architecture emerged from Elm's language-level design constraints. Obviously it has proven popular outside Elm as well!
  3. The impetus for elm/time was the realization that if Elm wants to compile to other platforms, it could no longer rely on JavaScript's Date under the hood; it needs a pure-Elm solution which obeys the constraint that it can access only a single integer: the number of milliseconds since the UNIX Epoch. The result is a much nicer API!

In Elm, sorting operations typically rely on comparable. The goal of this experiment is to see what sorting-related APIs emerge from introducing a design constrint:

Do not depend on comparable in any way.

Maybe the resulting APIs are nice. Who knows?

Current Design

This package currently comprises a few ideas:

  1. A composable Sorter API that replaces List.sort, List.sortBy, and List.sortWith with a single function (Sort.list). In particular, Sort.by and Sort.reverse (when used together) nicely scratch an itch I've encountered on a few different occasions. Sort.tiebreaker addresses a use case we've run into at work.
  2. An implementation of Dict and Set that use Sorter to permit keys that are not comparable.
  3. Some API changes to Dict and Set that seem nicer independent of (but which also facilitate) the introduction of Sorter.

Since we're already in experimental territory, I based this experimental implementation on another one; this is using Skinney/elm-dict-exploration under the hood for some performance gains.

Prior art

Set and Dict API Changes

In this package, filter has been replaced by keepIf and dropIf.

The argument order on member has also been flipped, and its name has been adjusted to reflect the new ordering:

Set.memberOf : Set a -> a -> Bool
Dict.memberOf : Dict k v -> k -> Bool

In practice, at work we've wanted to partially apply member almost always with this argument ordering rather than the one currently in elm/core. This ordering works wonderfully with keepIf and dropIf:

positiveEvens =
    Set.keepIf (Set.memberOf evens) positives

positiveOdds =
    Set.dropIf (Set.memberOf evens) positives

Now that it's so easy to filter based on other sets, it's questionable whether Set.intersect and Set.diff should remain in the API. (More on this later.)

Finally, the following operations on Set and Dict now take a Sorter as their first argument:

  • empty
  • singleton
  • fromList
  • merge

Other Set API Changes

Set.union takes a Sorter as its first argument. It is now:

Set.union : Sorter a -> Set a -> Set a -> Set a

Since it uses the given Sorter to sort the combined set, the two Set arguments can be passed in any order and it will give the same answer.

Set.diff and Set.intersect have been removed in favor of using keepIf and dropIf, which work nicely with Set.memberOf:

positiveEvens =
    Set.keepIf (Set.memberOf evens) positives
    -- Set.intersect positives evens

positiveOdds =
    Set.dropIf (Set.memberOf evens) positives
    -- Set.diff positives evens

map needs an extra argument to specify the Sorter for the resulting Set. It is now:

map : Sorter b -> (a -> b) -> Set a -> Set b

Other Dict API Changes

Dict.union has been renamed to Dict.insertAll:

{-| Take all the key-value pairs in the first dictionary and
`insert` them into the second dictionary.
-}
insertAll : Dict k v -> Dict k v -> Dict k v

This makes it clear what happens when both dictionaries have the same key but different values: it does what insert would do in that situation. (It also makes it clear which dictionary's Sorter will be used - once again, by looking to what insert does.)

Additionally, diff and intersect have been removed. In both the comparable and the Sorter APIs, there are a few issues with these functions:

  1. In both functions, it matters which Dict is passed first and which is passed second. However, looking at a call site, it is unclear which ordering leads to which outcome. This means that not only can the compiler not help with mistakes, it is also hard for programmers to spot mistakes. It's common for me to need to consult documentation to understand what a Dict.intersect or Dict.diff call is actually doing.
  2. Compounding the previous point, their argument ordering is inconsistent with respect to one another, making it easy to mix up which has which order. Dict.intersect does the equivalent of Dict.keepIf on the second dictionary (checking for membership in the first dictionary), whereas Dict.diff does the equivalent of Dict.dropIf on the first dictionary (checking for membership in the second dictionary). Because of this, Dict.diff is also generally inconsistent with how other functions in elm/core order their arguments; it would be more typical if flipped.
  3. Both functions are rarely used in Elm programs, and no other programming language except Haskell offers equivalent functions them for that language's dictionary equivalents. Even if there were no other concerns with these functions, it's debatable whether they merit inclusion in the API - especially considering they are convenience shorthands for simple keepIf/dropIf calls rather than sources of new functionality.

These are all problems that exist with the current comparable API, but they are exacerbated by the Sorter API.

Fortunately, using Dict.keepIf and Dict.dropIf directly has none of these problems. Since it is generally a is better choice to use Dict.keepIf and Dict.dropIf over Dict.intersect and Dict.diff, those functions have been removed.

Summary of API Changes

These now take an additional Sorter as their first argument:

  • List.sort (in that this API uses Sort.list instead, which takes a Sorter)
  • Set.empty / Dict.empty
  • Set.singleton / Dict.singleton
  • Set.fromList / Dict.fromList
  • Dict.merge
  • Set.map
  • Set.union

I do not consider the explicit argument a significant drawback. As Gary Bernhardt put it:

A distressing amount of the history of programming is about ways to avoid passing the first argument around explicitly.

Most of the other API changes affect names and argument ordering, but otherwise the types are the same:

  • Dict.union has been renamed to Dict.insertAll to clarify that argument order matters (as it always has).
  • Set.member and Dict.member have been flipped and renamed to memberOf.
  • Set.filter and Dict.filter have been split into two functions, keepIf and dropIf.

The only remaining change is that intersect and diff have been removed. Given the changes to member and filter, the intersect and diff functions have become less nice than using memberOf with keepIf or dropIf directly. If it's better not to use them, they shouldn't be in the API anymore.