If records implemented IFn, you could treat them as collections, which they are not. There is an asymmetry here: Maps can be used as (impoverished but easy) records, but the reverse is not true:
(:foo x) ; x is logically a record (though might be a map for simplicity). (x :foo) ; x is a collection (not a record, entity, etc.) Records not implementing IFn forces you to do what you should do anyway -- access records with the keyword first. Stu > > Hi BG, > It is a common mistake to think that callability, corresponding to the > clojure.lang.IFn interface, is part of the persistent map contract > (I've done it myself, as did many others a Conj labs :). It is not. It > is actually just a feature of clojure.lang.PersistentHashMap (and the > other clojure map implementations). > > > While I get that part, I wonder why records do not implement IFn, it'd be > convenient if they did. > > -- > 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 -- 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
