Hi Eksperimental, Thanks for the proposal!
Can you please provide an example of where you think this would be optimized? I am certain for keyword it won't make a large difference because the cost is in traversing the keyword. And for maps, usually there is no update if you are trying to put the same value back, so I would say those concerns are already handled within the runtime. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:06 PM eksperimental <[email protected]> wrote: > I have noticed that there are times that based on the get value, there > is no need to update the data, and we have just to pass the same data > back. > So in addition to `:pop` I propose to add `:keep` or `:skip`. > > This will optimize things quiet a not only in {Map, > Keyword}.get_and_update/3 but aslo in Access.get_and_update/3 since we > won't have to dispatch and return directly. > > Please let me know what you think, > Thank you. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "elixir-lang-core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/605485c2.1c69fb81.df633.535dSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4JqLTQ%3DNm%3Db2rvdrY93FT%3DqOTNCcGi%3DpksK%2BgsP5EPe9w%40mail.gmail.com.
