Proposal: composition util for Maps

[amindfv at gmail.com]

+1 from me on the addition and the name "compose"

Tom

> El 7 jul 2019, a las 13:49, David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm fairly confident that implementation is optimal, though I don't know how to even try to prove it. The only situation I see where we could obviously do better is when ab maps many keys to the same value and bc is very large compared to ab. In that case, it would make sense to store a "cache" of lookups into bc. But the constant factors for such an arrangement would be terrible, and there would be no benefit whatsoever in the general case. So I think the simple thing is the right thing here. As for names, I like compose. I support the proposal for the reason Alexandre gives: it feels like a fundamental operation.
> 
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019, 1:22 PM Alexandre Esteves <alexandre.fmp.esteves at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In https://github.com/haskell/containers/issues/647 I proposed the following util:
>> 
>> composition :: Ord b => Map b c -> Map a b -> Map a c
>> composition bc ab = flip mapMaybe ab $ flip lookup bc
>> 
>> Which has O(|ab| * log |bc|) performance. It's not particularly hard to write, but it does feel like a primitive-ish operation, and it's not obvious to me whether there's a faster implementation.
>> 
>> Other name suggestions
>> - (.)
>> - chain
>> - compose
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190707/5334e57d/attachment.html>