Add `del_in()` to colls.py for symmetry and completeness about funcy HOT 3 CLOSED

Ok, if you frame it as adding del_in() then it makes sense for completeness and symmetry. It will need to support lists though for the same reasons. I'll mark this with looking for more interest label for now. Thanks for bringing this up, I missed it somehow during the initial design.

from funcy.

There are a couple of issues with this:

• the API does not permit omitting several things, like omit() does.
• what about of projecting instead of omitting? Do we also need project_in()?
• what if we want to filter keys by some predicate? Do we need select_keys_in()?

So we come to a combinatoric explosion, which is traditionally solved with composition. In this case we can pass things to update_in():

update_in({'a': {'b': 0, 'c': 1}}, ['a'], rpartial(omit, {'c'}))

# if we expect path may not always be present
update_in(coll, path, rpartial(omit, keys), default={})

# several things to omit
update_in(coll, path, rpartial(omit, {'c', 'd'}))

# whitelist keys on path
update_in(coll, path, rpartial(project, {'a', 'b'}))

# ...

If you happen to do any particular of these operations a lot you may write a one-line helper. I am not sure that one should be included into funcy just yet.

from funcy.

Wow, I think I just didn't spend enough time toying around with update_in to realize how powerful it is. Even set_in is defined in terms of update_in. Very clever!
I would close this issue now since I agree with you that it doesn't seem worth the trouble, but there's still something bothering me here:

• if you wish to do d.get(...) or d[...] in a deep/nested collection, you use get_in
• if you wish to do d[...] = ... in a deep/nested collection, you use set_in
• if you wish more general operations, perhaps update_in is the answer

So, loosely speaking, we have dict.__getitem__ and dict.__setitem__ available through get_in and set_in. However, the analogous to del d[...] (or dict.__delitem__) is still missing. I know that it can be easily implemented using update_in (as you showed), but then also can set_in. It was this "del_in" analogous that I had in mind and felt that was missing in funcy when I wrote omit_in.

Having the complete set of basic dict operations would be nice, but I also think that it may indeed be too much trouble for too little value (since nobody else seemed to need this feature up to now). I'll leave this issue open for now if you wish to add any closing remarks, but I'm satisfied with tweaking update_in.

from funcy.