Add unionWith and unionWithKey#29
Open
SiriusStarr wants to merge 2 commits intoelm-community:masterfrom
Open
Conversation
jfmengels
reviewed
Sep 30, 2022
Doc comment accidentally referenced `unionWith` instead of `unionWithKey` Co-authored-by: Jeroen Engels <jfm.engels@gmail.com>
SiriusStarr
added a commit
to SiriusStarr/elm-review-no-single-pattern-case
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2022
This can be removed if elm-community/dict-extra#29 is merged.
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
unionWithis a pretty commonly used function, e.g. when counting occurrences, andunionWithKeyis essentially free, since it's convenient to defineunionWithin terms of it.