Good call! I think that'd be a clean implementation.

Neal <notifications@github.com> wrote:

>>       */
>> -    recordNames.keys.filter(!dict.recordNames.contains(_)).foreach {
>> +    recordNames.keys.foreach {
>
>I think we can just rely on the overloaded ++ method, since our merge semantics are the same as what Scala provides for Maps. What do you think?
>
>---
>Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
>https://github.com/bigdatagenomics/adam/pull/217/files#r11774102<p>In adam-core/src/main/scala/org/bdgenomics/adam/models/SequenceDictionary.scala:</p>
><pre style='color:#555'>&gt;       */
>&gt; -    recordNames.keys.filter(!dict.recordNames.contains(_)).foreach {
>&gt; +    recordNames.keys.foreach {
></pre>
><p>I think we can just rely on the overloaded ++ method, since our merge semantics are the same as what Scala provides for Maps. What do you think?</p>
>
><p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br>Reply to this email directly or <a href='https://github.com/bigdatagenomics/adam/pull/217/files#r11774102'>view it on GitHub</a>.<img src='https://github.com/notifications/beacon/3752466__eyJzY29wZSI6Ik5ld3NpZXM6QmVhY29uIiwiZXhwaXJlcyI6MTcxMzQ1MjEyMiwiZGF0YSI6eyJpZCI6MzAyOTY1MDF9fQ==--68c8296bbcc680ec6ff019f8d9dfd15a69cb3866.gif' height='1' width='1'></p>