Comment by 8note
1 day ago
fold kinda does too, for setting the first combined value that you are assembling, and thus on an empty list you end up with that wrong value, same as the for loop
1 day ago
fold kinda does too, for setting the first combined value that you are assembling, and thus on an empty list you end up with that wrong value, same as the for loop
No, the sum of the first ten natural numbers is always 55. It is not "initialised" to some other number beforehand.
japgolly’s signature for reduce above is slightly wrong, it should be `[A] -> ((A,A) -> A) -> Maybe A`.
I.e. there is no initial value to pass in, but the result is an Optional to handle the empty iterator case. That’s how rust does it, for example:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#metho...
If your data should not be successfully folded if it's empty, you should've already parsed it as an Optional nonEmptyList instead of letting illegal states fly around for a while in your application.
Yeah that's good application design, but those concerns aren't so relevant to the person writing the standard library for a language. You can certainly include a specialized version of reduce for nonEmptyLists which just returns A, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to return an Optional for a normal possibly-empty iterator if you want your reduce function to be non-partial.