Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

support for inline matching #21

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
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 8, 2018
Merged

support for inline matching #21

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 8, 2018

Conversation

@twop
Copy link
Contributor

@twop twop commented Apr 7, 2018

  • Added reverseCurry function that is based on number of arguments + works via arguments
function reverseCurry<A1, A2, R, F extends (a1: A1, a2: A2) => R>(
  f: F,
): ReverseCurriedFunc<A1, A2, R> {
  const func = function reverseCurried(a1: A1 | A2, a2: A2 | undefined) {
    if (arguments.length == 1) {
      return (a: A1) => f(a, <A2>a1);
    }

    return f(<A1>a1, <A2>a2);
  };

  return (func as any) as ReverseCurriedFunc<A1, A2, R>;
}
  • Also replaced match with evalMatch -> reverseCurry(evalMatch)
  • Added tests for inline matching

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Apr 7, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling fd4cab3 on twop:master into 219b15e on pelotom:master.

@twop
Copy link
Contributor Author

twop commented Apr 7, 2018

BTW thanks for adding prettier. It was a huge pain for me to remove ';' all the time :)

  • I have changes ready for update & config will make PR after this is merged (if merged at all :) )

pelotom
pelotom requested changes Apr 8, 2018
View reviewed changes
src/index.ts Outdated
: cases.default(variant);
}

const match: ReverseCurriedFunc<any, any, any> = reverseCurry(evalMatch);
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

All this reverse curry machinery seems overly complex. Why not just

  const match = (first: any, second?: any) =>
    second ? evalMatch(first, second) : (variant: any) => evalMatch(variant, first);

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I originally used it "update" func as well. But I guess if we rely on ts to exclude 'undefine' we simplify that.

@twop
Copy link
Contributor Author

twop commented Apr 8, 2018

Used suggested variant

@pelotom pelotom merged commit 7d7c17e into pelotom:master Apr 8, 2018
@pelotom
Copy link
Owner

pelotom commented Apr 8, 2018

Great, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@pelotom pelotom pelotom approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@twop @coveralls @pelotom