Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Added recursive merge function for NamedTuple, addresses #29215 #29259

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 1, 2018
Merged

Added recursive merge function for NamedTuple, addresses #29215 #29259

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
fbe6d28
Added recursive merge function for NamedTuple, addresses #29215
jpsamaroo Sep 18, 2018
6a72903
Fixed NamedTuple recursive merge docstring slightly, added another te…
jpsamaroo Sep 18, 2018
2d14ca3
Change "recursive" NamedTuple merge to "left-associative" merge, and …
jpsamaroo Sep 19, 2018
4202ec9
Fixed jldoctest failure
jpsamaroo Sep 19, 2018
8d4ac08
Re-fixify the docstring...
jpsamaroo Sep 19, 2018
1a8d4c4
Combine NamedTuple merge docstrings
jpsamaroo Oct 20, 2018
3d9a955
Added single argument merge
jpsamaroo Oct 21, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 12 additions & 0 deletions base/namedtuple.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -241,6 +241,18 @@ merge(a::NamedTuple{()}, b::NamedTuple) = b

merge(a::NamedTuple, b::Iterators.Pairs{<:Any,<:Any,<:Any,<:NamedTuple}) = merge(a, b.data)

"""
merge(a::NamedTuple, b::NamedTuple, cs::NamedTuple...)

Perform a left-associative merge of three or more named tuples.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not two?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because regular merge(a::NamedTuple, b::NamedTuple) already handles the two-argument case? I wrote the docstring for just this single method, which accepts only three or mpre arguments. Should I have done it differently?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we can combine the two docstrings then?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Bump.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the best way to merge the docstrings, just copy one of them into the other after 2 newlines and leave this new merge definition without its own docstring? If so, is it ok if I replace merge(a::NamedTuple, b::NamedTuple) definition in the docstring with merge(a::NamedTuple, bs::NamedTuple...), even though none of the individual methods have that exact signature?


```jldoctest
julia> merge((a=1, b=2), (b=3, c=(d=1,)), (c=(d=2,),))
(a = 1, b = 3, c = (d = 2,))
```
"""
merge(a::NamedTuple, b::NamedTuple, cs::NamedTuple...) = merge(merge(a, b), cs...)

"""
merge(a::NamedTuple, iterable)

Expand Down
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions test/namedtuple.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -240,3 +240,7 @@ y = map(v -> (a=v.a, b=v.a + v.b), [(a=1, b=missing), (a=1, b=2)])
# Iterator constructor
@test NamedTuple{(:a, :b), Tuple{Int, Float64}}(Any[1.0, 2]) === (a=1, b=2.0)
@test NamedTuple{(:a, :b)}(Any[1.0, 2]) === (a=1.0, b=2)

# Left-associative merge, issue #29215
@test merge((a=1, b=2), (b=3, c=4), (c=5,)) === (a=1, b=3, c=5)
@test merge((a=1, b=2), (b=3, c=(d=1,)), (c=(d=2,),)) === (a=1, b=3, c=(d=2,))