Monoid.reduce has different signatures for objects and arrays about funcadelic.js HOT 4 CLOSED

The "signature" for reduce is reduce(Monoid, list) where list is a list of monoids. Or, alternatively, Monoid.reduce(list). In both cases, what you have to reduce is a list. That's just how Monoids work.

So testcase Sum.reduce({"a": 1, "b": 2, "c": 3, "d": 4})) this is an invalid usage of the api. My intuition is to keep the moving parts as simple as possible because being hard-nosed about it thus far has yielded such amazing dividends.

To get the behavior of Sum.reduce(values({"a": 1, "b": 2, "c": 3, "d": 4})), perhaps the introduction of another typeclass in order to maximize composability without overloading existing typeclasses?

const Values = type(class Values {
  values(holder) {
    return this(holder).values(holder);
  }
);

Values.instance(Array, {
  values(array) { return array; }
});

Values.instance(Object, {
  values(object) { return Object.values(object); }
});

from funcadelic.js.

Yes, this would work nicely! I'll make a PR.

from funcadelic.js.

We can close this issue and PR. I'll make another and reference this one.

from funcadelic.js.

Maybe we should try it out in libraries consuming it first, a-la Monad.

Also, I think that this highlights a weakness with error handling and messaging.

from funcadelic.js.