Add more doctests to Kleisli #2722
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2722 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.13% 95.13%
=======================================
Files 365 365
Lines 6798 6798
Branches 296 313 +17
=======================================
Hits 6467 6467
Misses 331 331
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, @nasadorian! Good stuff.
I left one minor comment. Also the git history is a little messy and seems to have some commits with duplicate titles. It may be a bit cleaner to squash some of those, but it's no big deal either way.
| def pure[F[_], A, B](x: B)(implicit F: Applicative[F]): Kleisli[F, A, B] = | ||
| Kleisli(_ => F.pure(x)) | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Similar to [[pure]] except the input type is the same as the `A` in output type `F[A]`. | ||
| */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment is true, but I think that it could be more illustrative. In my mind, ask is to Kleisli as identity is to Function1. I think that it would be helpful to point out that in the resulting Kleisli, the output A is the same as the input A (the actual value not just the type). A code example might help get this point across.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just updated and added an example to ask
Thanks for the review @ceedubs - yes I think I'll squash the commits into one. |
nasadorian
force-pushed
the
kleisli-doctests
branch
from
512f15f
to
b35df7e
Compare
|
Okay @kailuowang I got the build to pass, looks like my commits overrode your approval 😅 |
Re: Issue #2479 -- Appreciate any feedback to improve or further clarify examples.
Adds comments and some doctests for Kleisli: