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

A final question: Both `restrictKeys` and `withoutKeys` are special cases of `filterWithKey` (although they should be considerably more efficient than implementations using that function). Do we also want a `partition` special case, in which a map is partitioned into the keys that are in a set and the ones that are not? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:

Good enough for me.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:11 PM, David Feuer 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 wrote:

...

How about `keepKeys`?

2016-07-14 21:36 GMT+05:00 Daniel Trstenjak :

...

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@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries