Ref: Stuart Halloway's talk: "Simplicity": http://blip.tv/clojure/stuart-halloway-simplicity-ain-t-easy-4842694
Found via reading list: http://clojure.com/reading.html ) At one point in his talk he states that defrecord is in fact basically "documented, named [typed] structure". (as opposed to a standard map). This I thought was quite genius. But on further reflection I wonder if: A: Doesn't this contradict another Clojure rationale: "It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures." - Alan J. Perlis http://clojure.org/rationale B: Is this not a form of optimization - (which may be premature)? C: Is it best to use records only within an aplication, but to export to generic maps when "serializing" data to a string og stream for communication or storage ... Is this the best way to "serialize" a record?: (into {} intance-of-my-record) Would you "desiralize" it with a custom function like this? (fn [{key1 :key1, key2 :key2}] (MyRecord. key1 key2)) (calling it like this: (my-fn map-to-be-destructure-and-recordfied) -- 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
