Add changelog entries since v5.3.1 #209
There are no files selected for viewing
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -5,12 +5,32 @@ Notable changes to this project are documented in this file. The format is based | |
| ## [Unreleased] | ||
|
|
||
| Breaking changes: | ||
| - Added support for PureScript 0.14 and dropped support for all previous versions (#181) | ||
| - Renamed `Data.Array.ST.empty` to `Data.Array.ST.new` (#191, #198) | ||
| - Renamed `group'` to `groupAll` (#194, #200) | ||
|
|
||
| New features: | ||
| - Added specialized monomorphic functions from `Data.Foldable` (#201): | ||
| - Added `foldl`, `foldr`, `foldMap`, `fold`, `intercalate` to `Array` | ||
| - Added `foldl1`, `foldr1`, `foldMap1`, `foldl1`, `intercalate` to `Array.NonEmpty` | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Reorganized the nested bullets to cut down on duplication. What's the follow-up step for There was a problem hiding this comment. The question is whether intercalate should get its own Array specific implementation (for performance) rather than just being a specialization of the intercalate from Data.Foldable. I think it probably should, or at least we should measure to see if an Array-based implementation would speed it up, but I suppose that doesn’t need to happen right now. There was a problem hiding this comment. I've opened #210 to track this. |
||
| - Added monomorphic `elem`, `notElem`, `find`, `findMap`, `scanl`, `scanr`, `any`, `all` (#189, #193, #201) | ||
| - Added `intersperse`, `groupAllBy`, `splitAt` (#179, #188, #194, #200, #201) | ||
| - Added `mapWithIndex`, `groupBy` to `Array.NonEmpty` (#201, #164) | ||
|
|
||
| Bugfixes: | ||
| - Fixed `sort`, so `undefined` is sorted by comparison function and not simply moved to the end of the array (#195, #197) | ||
|
|
||
| Other improvements: | ||
| - Generated changelog and added PR template (#208, #209) | ||
| - Added benchmarking (#178) | ||
| - Migrated to GitHub Actions for CI (#187, #169) | ||
| - Removed some internal usages of `unsafeCoerce` (#184) | ||
| - Changed `foldM` type signature to more closely match `foldl` (#160) | ||
| - Updated installation instructions to use Spago (#171) | ||
| - Replaced foreign `cons`, `snoc`, `drop`, `take` with purescript implementations (#180) | ||
milesfrain marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| - Removed `return {}` from FFI function for a small performance boost (#175) | ||
| - Bumped pulp version (#174) | ||
| - Removed primes from foreign modules exports (#168) | ||
|
|
||
| ## [v5.3.1](https://github.com/purescript/purescript-arrays/releases/tag/v5.3.1) - 2019-10-13 | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I actually find this a bit confusing, because these functions aren’t actually from Data.Foldable, they’re versions of those functions. I’d suggest “Added specialized versions of the functions from Data.Foldable”. Saying they’re specialized is the same thing as saying they’re monomorphic, and I think using both words makes this a bit harder to parse.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about
It doesn't include the
HeytingAlgebrabeing forced to beBooleanchanges we also made (e.g.all,any), but that's the heart of it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I still prefer to say “Added specialized versions of the functions from Data.Foldable“. My problem is with saying the functions are from Data.Foldable (as opposed to being versions of the functions from Data.Foldable).