Return Nothing() If The Object passed To Get() Is Null

Would it be reasonable for get to have the above behaviour? I’d like to use this function as the ‘gateway’ for converting the values in a function pipeline to Maybes. Currently I’m a querying a datasource using highland for some JSON that may return null. At the moment I do this:

var _ = require('highland');
var R = require('ramda');
var S = require('sanctuary');

_(datasource)
     .map(R.compose(R.chain(S.get('b')), R.chain(S.get('a')), S.toMaybe))
     .reject(S.Nothing().equals)

It would be nice not to have to do that initial map with toMaybe and the subsequent call to R.chain so it would look like this:

_(datasource)
     .map(R.compose(R.chain(S.get('b')), S.get('a')))
     .reject(S.Nothing().equals)

Or even nicer once v0.5.0 of Sanctuary drops:

_(datasource)
     .map(S.gets(['a', 'b']))
     .reject(S.Nothing().equals)

[CrossEye]

I was excited to see this issue, @svozza. I had not realized that Sanctuary is being used outside a handful of Plaid projects.

Watch out. That’s what happened to @buzzdecafe and me too with Ramda. A year later, there are 1600+ commits from 62 different contributors, 31 open issues and 9 unresolved pull requests out of over a thousand total issues/PRs raised! It’s a fun ride, but a little scary too! 😄

The question is whether it is the caller’s responsibility to provide appropriate values or whether certain functions should be more forgiving. Certain Ramda functions treat null/undefined as an empty object. Currently Sanctuary takes a stricter stance.

I’m quite happy with this breakdown. Ramda pushes things a fair way towards stronger typing of functions, but makes some pragmatic compromises familiar to Javascript developers. Sanctuary pushes a little closer to languages like ML and Haskell. Since they can play well together, a user can decide which level is appropriate for herself.

[svozza]

Sounds good. Thanks guys.