Proposal: Add `restriction` to Data.Map and Data.IntMap

[Edward Kmett]

Good enough for me.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:11 PM, David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:

> I got distracted from this discussion for a bit. Based on input from
> the list, and Ross Paterson's remark about argument order, I'm
> currently thinking
>
> restrictKeys :: Ord k => Map k a -> Set k -> Map k a
>
> and
>
> withoutKeys :: Ord k => Map k a -> Set k -> Map k a
>
> Are there any major objections?
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Alexey Vagarenko <vagarenko at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > How about `keepKeys`?
> >
> > 2016-07-14 21:36 GMT+05:00 Daniel Trstenjak <daniel.trstenjak at gmail.com
> >:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:02:51PM -0400, David Feuer wrote:
> >> > If you name it, it will come!
> >>
> >> intersectKeys and differentiateKeys
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> intersectionWithSet and differenceWithSet
> >>
> >> or ;)
> >>
> >> intersectionOfKeys and differenceOfKeys
> >>
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Daniel
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Libraries mailing list
> >> Libraries at haskell.org
> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libraries mailing list
> > Libraries at haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20160725/ef146881/attachment.html>