I feel your pain, but you kinda shot yourself in the foot from the get go. What you did is the same as if you had decided to use a Java List<String> to store your Account info.
I'd suggest you read over this: https://clojure.org/reference/datatypes#_why_have_both_deftype_and_defrecord It explains the idiomatic way to deal with application domain information, such as Account, Employees, etc. Spoiler, use records, or at least a map. Now having said that, given a project across many namespaces, you will still have some of the problems of not having type declarations. Like if a function takes the record, but the argument is not called account, but say x instead, you would need to dig back to understand what this operates on. Spec could change that though. On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 18:52:41 UTC-7, Kevin Kleinfelter wrote: > > I ran into the 'refactoring an unnamed type' problem. I'd like to know > how experienced Clojurists avoid it. > > I've got an account record/structure. It has things like an account name, > account number, etc. I started off storing it in a vector, because it had > just two elements. Account name was (first v). Account number was (second > v). And that worked up to a point. Over time, it has acquired enough > pieces and rules that I really need to change its implementation. I need > to refactor it. > > When it was only a few hundred lines long, in a couple of files, I could > examine each line. Now that it's a dozen files and several thousand lines, > I just don't have the attention span. > > In a language with named types, I could search for AccountRecord. I > could thoroughly find all the places I used it and refactor it. Or I could > change the name of the type to tAccountRecord, and the compiler would > identify all the places where I used it (with error messages). > > In an OO language, I'd be accessing all of its pieces via getters and > setters, and I wouldn't have to find all of the places where I used it, > because the implementation would be a black box. > > But in a language with unnamed types, it's just a vector and I've just got > first and second and nth to search for. That's going to find lots of > irrelevant stuff. It's enough to make me pine for Java and a refactoring > IDE. =:-o > > So how do developers who work with un-typed (or un-named type) languages > avoid this sort of problem? Or, failing to avoid it, how do they clean up > afterward? > tnx > > -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
