Set.store(_:) AnyCancellable-constrained storage overloads.

[jasdev]

Figured it’d be helpful to have an anlog to the DisposeBag.insert(_:) variants.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #21 into master will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #21      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.72%   96.78%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          34       36       +2     
  Lines        1617     1646      +29     
==========================================
+ Hits         1564     1593      +29     
  Misses         53       53              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
Sources/Utilities/Set+AnyCancellable.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Tests/Set+AnyCancellableTests.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7ed4677...54de830. Read the comment docs.

[freak4pc]

Hey @jasdev - thanks for this :) In this specific case though, I think this PR doesn't really fit the spirit of CombineExt, because this extension effects Set as a whole and only allows really light ergonomics.

The more "generic" version of this would allow set.insert(contentsOf: [...]), which is a behavior you can get if you use an Array<AnyCancellable>, instead.

I don't think this specific extension is useful enough to include here and am more worried about the fact it extends a Foundation type, and not a Combine type.

WDYT?

[jasdev]

because this extension effects Set as a whole

For what it’s worth, it is constrained to Set.Element == AnyCancellable. So, its surface area is as small as possible.

which is a behavior you can get if you use an Array<AnyCancellable>, instead.

Yep! Multi-inserting isn’t available on Set and I figured the cosmetic is worth it so folks don’t have to fall back for an Array when a Set might be more performant in handling accidental double-inserts of the same cancellable.

it extends a Foundation type, and not a Combine type.

While true, it again is constrained to a Combine type. So it’s only surfaced to folks working with Set<AnyCancellable>s.

---

I don’t have a strong opinion here though, so, if you’re not digging it I’m totally cool closing this. 😄

[freak4pc]

It feels wrong to add, in my eyes. I might've extended this on a personal project but I'm feeling weird adding an extension on Set for a project around Combine extensions and operators, especially since it's quite simple and would be trivial to write yourself if its ergonomics you're interested in having.

I think that the way to go would be to find more people who think this is a good addition to have as part of CombineExt, in which case we can add this, but otherwise I'd prefer to leave it out.

[jasdev]

10-4!