As the doc for 'accessor notes, you should really eschew this stuff altogether, and be more idiomatic by just using the keyword. If you absolutely know that you need that "(slightly) more efficient" access, then naming the struct with an uppercase first letter works, and isn't too uncommon; besides this is a special-case performance issue, right?
On Mar 19, 4:36 pm, strattonbrazil <strattonbra...@gmail.com> wrote: > If am creating accessors to access structures, how should they be > named? > > (defstruct employer :employee) > (defstruct employee :employer) > (def employee-name (accessor employee :employer)) > (def employer-name (accessor employer :employee)) > > In a situation where one struct is pointing to the other, is that the > best accessor name? Since structs are lower case do they clash with > variables and accessors ever? I could easily see myself doing > > (def employee (...)) > > Here, I assume it won't have any problems, but does it become > problematic later? Especially since it seems that accessors can be in > either order. > > (defstruct vert :id :edgeId) > (defstruct edge :id :vertId) > (def vert (accessor edge :vert)) > (def edge (accessor vert :edge)) > > I know this could be easily resolved by changing the accessor > definitions to get-vert and get-edge, but I was hoping it wouldn't be > necessary. Once again, I'm bound to have a variable somewhere in my > code called vert and edge. Java and Scala don't seem to have this > problem. Especially using Scala's builtin getter setter feature, > which has strick ordering like > > edge.vert // returns the vert for this edge > vert.edge // returns the edge for this vert > > Is there a better naming convention to follow? get-vert and get- > edge? Should structures ever be uppercase to distinguish them? That > doesn't seem to be the lisp convention. In these cases it seems the > struct name would > never be a problem, but it seems I'm stuck between making a convenient > accessor name and easily stomping over if making a convenient variable > name. -- 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
