On Jun 19, 11:13 am, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Christophe Grand<christo...@cgrand.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I would further your reasoning on tolerance: it depends on whether the key,
> > the map or both are variable.
> > (key map) is safe as long as you know that key is a symbol or a keyword.
> > (map key) is safe as long as you know that map will not be nil.
> > (get map key) never fails ((get (Object.) (Object.)) returns nil)
>
> I use nil tolerance as my main guide. Also, whether or not I want to allow
> 'map' to actually be a non-map function. If that's all a wash, then I go for
> esthetics: if key is a literal keyword I'll usually put it first, if key is
> not
> a keyword and map is more complex that a simple local or var I'll usually use
> 'get'.
>
> An example of that last point, I think:
>
> (@(:state-map my-obj) field-id-num)
>
> is more confusing than:
>
> (get @(:state-map my-obj) field-id-num)
>
I like (:key map) when I'm treating the map like I would an object
with keywords as fields, and (map key) when I'm treating a map like a
collection. Not a hard rule.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
