Occasionally I have to write a custom def macro, and this would make
life easier. I would have to use it to provide specific feedback, but
it seems like an idea worth pursuing.
On Dec 19, 3:58 pm, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In Clojure it is idiomatic to have optional args at the front of the
> signature. This makes it easy to define convenient caller APIs, but it
> leads to bulky let forms like this one (from clojure.core/defmulti)
>
> (let [docstring (if (string? (first options))
> (first options)
> nil)
> options (if (string? (first options))
> (next options)
> options)
> m (if (map? (first options))
> (first options)
> {})
> options (if (map? (first options))
> (next options)
> options)
> dispatch-fn (first options)
> options (next options)
> m (assoc m :tag 'clojure.lang.MultiFn)
> m (if docstring
> (assoc m :doc docstring)
> m)
> m (if (meta mm-name)
> (conj (meta mm-name) m)
> m)]
>
> Is it worth capturing this common idiom in a helper function, e.g. pop-
> optional-args:
>
> (defn pop-optional-args
> [preds args]
> (if (seq preds)
> (if ((first preds) (first args))
> (cons (first args) (pop-optional-args (rest preds) (rest args)))
> (cons nil (pop-optional-args (rest preds) args)))
> (list args)))
>
> The above let form would then be:
>
> (let [[docstring m dispatch-fn options] (pop-optional-args [string?
> map? identity] options)
> m (assoc m :tag 'clojure.lang.MultiFn)
> m (if docstring
> (assoc m :doc docstring)
> m)
> m (if (meta mm-name)
> (conj (meta mm-name) m)
> m)]
>
> Worth doing? If so, how could it be better?
>
> Stu
--
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
