Hi, On Feb 2, 2:31 pm, Timothy Pratley <timothyprat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmm.. I thought of get-in as a recursive application of get. get-in > > now diverges from get. Maybe this version should be called "unwrap" > > instead? > > Zero applications of get to a map might be thought of as the map itself. > Are you thinking of a particular scenario where throwing an exception > would be better? Ok. One could see this like that: (get-in m [:a :b]) => (get (get m :a) :b) (get-in m [:a]) => (get m :a) (get-in m []) => m In so far I understand the picture of what happens. But does it make sense? get-in does a lookup of a key sequence in a nested structure of associative things. I think nil/[] are simply not in the domain of get- in. However it can be extended to nil/[] as the identity. So in the end it will probably boil down to some "suitable definition" argument of the domain of get-in. And I see some applications, where just returning the original thing might be handy. I'm persuaded. :) Sincerely Meikel -- 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
