Although that would return the default for a key with a nil value. So you're probably right reduce would have to change.
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Russell Christopher < russell.christop...@gmail.com> wrote: > (defn get-in > ([m ks] > (reduce get m ks)) > ([m ks not-found] > (if-let [res (get-in m ks)] res not-found))) > > Longer but still uses reduce > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Stefan Kamphausen < > ska2...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On May 17, 9:34 pm, braver <delivera...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > If get-in is to be consistent with get, it better allow to specify a >> > default value: >> > >> > (get-in nested-structure [k1 k2 ... kN] :default something) >> > >> > -- would it make sense to add that to the standard get-in? >> >> while I certainly agree from the users point of view, as an >> implementer, I'd hate to break the very nice implementation of get- >> in. One would have to change reduce first. ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> stefan >> >> -- >> 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<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> > > -- 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
