Is it worth adding a ToHashMap that takes Key and Value mappers about language-ext HOT 2 CLOSED

ToHashMap already exists, but it takes a IEnumerable<(K, V)>. What that means is you merely have to map to a pair to get the same behaviour. This maintains a separation of concerns: 1. the mapping, and 2. the conversion of the type.

(Obviously your implementation highlights that, I'm just explaining for those reading along).

What's better...

This?

    people.Map(p => (p.Id, p.Name)).ToHashMap()

Or, this?

    people.ToHashMap(p => p.Id, p => p.Name)

Some of this will be pure personal preference, but I would posit that the first is more declarative. The second one may just edge it on convenience, but isn't so declarative.

from language-ext.

Thanks for the perspective. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting replacing the current method signature; just adding a new extension.

That said, it's trivial to implement for those who need it (which might be a minority). And I can certainly appreciate keeping method signatures simple, especially if additional overloads would only serve a small subset of users.

Thanks again for the library. It's one of my favorite in .NET land.

from language-ext.