non-pure map functions in mapped-by shouldn't create multiple nodes.#100
Open
brycecovert wants to merge 1 commit intoaysylu:masterfrom
Open
non-pure map functions in mapped-by shouldn't create multiple nodes.#100brycecovert wants to merge 1 commit intoaysylu:masterfrom
mapped-by shouldn't create multiple nodes.#100brycecovert wants to merge 1 commit intoaysylu:masterfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I had a case where I was mapping over a graph and assoc'ing a uuid onto each. This caused my directed graph to have lots of 'copies' in it, since each call to the mapping function resulted in a different value. The result is a graph with a 2 new nodes per edge.
At first, I thought that changing
mapped-bymight be wrong, since it's generally poor form to use state in map/filter/etc. However, I realized that none of the derived graph functions are lazy, they're all eager, so this probably fits in line with the existing design.An alternative for me would be the ability to edit/update a node, with semantics similar to
update-inorswap!. An example of that would be:(update-node graph node #(assoc % :id (rand-int))).