Avoid recursion error in map if example is returned as dict value
NONE
_The documentation is not available anymore as the PR was closed or merged._
2022-04-25T14:50:54Z
https://github.com/huggingface/datasets/pull/4216#issuecomment-1108677602
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/4216
IC_kwDODunzps5CFRPi
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1108677602/reactions
2022-05-04T17:20:06Z
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1108677602
https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/99929124?v=4
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/events{/privacy}
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/followers
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/following{/other_user}
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/gists{/gist_id}
https://github.com/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev
HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev
U_kgDOBfTMJA
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/orgs
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/received_events
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/repos
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/starred{/owner}{/repo}
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev/subscriptions
User
https://api.github.com/users/HuggingFaceDocBuilderDev
public
I noticed this bug while answering [this question](https://discuss.huggingface.co/t/correct-way-to-create-a-dataset-from-a-csv-file/15686/11?u=mariosasko). 

This code replicates the bug:
```python
from datasets import Dataset
dset = Dataset.from_dict({"en": ["aa", "bb"], "fr": ["cc", "dd"]})
dset.map(lambda ex: {"translation": ex})
```
and this is the fix for it (before this PR):
```python
from datasets import Dataset
dset = Dataset.from_dict({"en": ["aa", "bb"], "fr": ["cc", "dd"]})
dset.map(lambda ex: {"translation": dict(ex)})
```

Internally, this can be fixed by merging two dicts via dict unpacking (instead of `dict.update) `in `Dataset.map`, which avoids creating recursive dictionaries.

P.S. `{**a, **b}` is slightly more performant than `a.update(b)` in my bencmarks.