On 2 February 2010 17:55, Richard Newman <holyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you view 'get-in' as an unwrapping operation, unwrapping by zero steps > should return the existing collection, no?
Thanks for that description I completely agree. > Can you explain why you think the result should be nil? I was not thinking very clearly :) Loosely 'oh there is nothing to look up'. Thanks for setting me straight. > As above: I equate nil with the empty sequence. Yup. Ok patch updated - salient part is: + ([m ks not-found] + (if (seq ks) + (if-let [l (reduce get m (butlast ks))] + (get l (last ks) not-found) + not-found) + m))) Which preserves all the desired behavior so far :) http://www.assembla.com/spaces/clojure/tickets/256-get-in-optional-default-value Regards, Tim. -- 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
