Repository navigation
Handbook should recommend using a user-defined homomorphic Omit #54451
Description
Activity
- changed the title
[-]Handbook should recommend better `Omit`[/-][+]Handbook should recommend using a user-defined homomorphic `Omit`[/+]on May 30, 2023 From the user's perspective, it really feels weird to me that this is pushed into the userland.
I totally understand the argument behind not wanting to make changes to the existing
Omit. You are concerned with having 2 Omits in the lib files which is also somewhat understandable. It's hard to come up with a perfect name for this, it also might confuse some people. But isn't including this in the handbook already (a) giving this a name, (b) might confuse some people? Shifting the responsibility for defining this type in the userland feels a little bit like a hygiene theater thing to me. (insert Spiderman meme here)I also wonder what happened to destructure improvements related to
MappedOmitfrom #53134 ? This PR has been closed without any concrete conclusion about that part and the related design notes also don't address this explicitly anyhow.Reacted by Justin Dalrymple, Ray and cshainsert Spiderman meme here
There are a few of these. Which one are you referencing?
Reacted by Justin Dalrymple, Arka Poddar, Andrii Dieiev, Michael Buss Rønne, Chandler Van De Water, Ibrahim Bolarinwa, Danilo Alonso, Felipe, Jorge Fuentes, Dmitry and 4 moreType-fest has a similar function, which is named "Except" which would avoid confusion with the same name?
Reacted by Keith PotempaI think something like
Exceptshould be added to the standard library andOmitshould be marked as deprecated, as it's quite the footgun.Reacted by Ibrahim Bolarinwa, Michael Buss Rønne, Kenta Moriuchi and Tomáš Wróbel
Bug Report
Per #53188, we know that it'd be better if
Omitwere homomorphic. In the Handbook we should steer people toward a better user definition, e.g.