> I tend to associate "bean" with Java beans, so the naming seems to be
> reversed IMHO: "bean" should convert a Clojure map to a Java bean, and
> "unbean" should do the reverse.
Agreed the name is awkward.
> It's getting late here so I don't have time to test, but would a
> recursive map be converted to a recursive bean (i.e. some elements are
> themselves beans) and vice versa with your functions?
The map alone is not sufficient to describe the object; you need the
class too. That's true both for the bean and any of it's bean-typed
properties, since a property might be typed with an interface or an
abstract class for which there is no constructor. To specify the
value of a bean-typed property, you'd do something like this:
(unbean House {:address "100 Elm Street" :architecture (unbean
Architecture {:style "Tudor Revival" :architect "F L Wright" :material
"concrete"})})
Of course the bean function doesn't walk the object hierarchy either.
Thanks for the feedback.
Bill
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
