Declare that f is applied iteratively in map!
#47012
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Bump. Does anyone have an opinion on this? |
|
No one is ever going to review this, so I might as well close it. |
|
I think there may be exceptions (e.g. SparseArrays) to this, so it may not be quite right to say it is necessarily the same order as iteration, only that eventually each element will be updated once. |
|
Ok, thanks! |
70 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #46352.
A consensus has not been reached in #46352, so this represents my opinion on the correct resolution of that issue. Basically, my resolution is to declare the existing behavior as correct and assert that
fis applied iteratively inmap!. Given the possibility of aliasing, and given thatmap!is intended to act in-place on the destination collection, I think this is the only feasible definition.I added the unit tests outside of the
generic_map_tests()function, because I don't think the "iteratively applyf" definition would make sense forasyncmap!. Please correct me if I am wrong. There appears to be an effort to have the various mapping functions have as similar a behavior as possible, but they are different functions after all, so I think it's ok to have some variation in the documented behaviors.