> I sort of remember Rich Hickey say this, but I am not sure :).
I was a bit mistaken.
In this video (
http://blip.tv/clojure/clojure-data-structures-part-2-714064 ) , around
42nd minute, he says that assoc is "the normal way" and is "more
convenient" because you can assoc multiple keys and values without having
to create a map out of them:
(assoc m :a 1 :b 2) ; vs.
(conj m {:a 1 :b 2})
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:31:41 AM UTC+2, dmirylenka wrote:
>
> I sort of remember Rich Hickey say this, but I am not sure :).
>
> As far as I see it, it is generally better to use more specific functions,
> as they make the assumptions about the types of the arguments more
> explicit. Sometimes they are also more efficient (but probably not in this
> case).
>
> So, for working with maps assoc is more preferable, as it is specific to
> maps (at least for non-integer keys).
>
> Polymorphic functions are nice when the concrete argument type is not
> important (e.g. list vs. vector).
> But in practice very few code is not going care whether it's working with
> map or a sequence - so conj is kind of overly polymorphic.
> This extra polymorphism can be confusing, for instance, if one tries to
> figure out the type of the following expression:
> (conj something [1 2]).
>
> contains? is maybe another example of generic function that has created
> confusion.
>
> That's my understanding ) .
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:05:48 AM UTC+2, Meikel Brandmeyer
> (kotarak) wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 29.08.2012 um 23:38 schrieb dmirylenka:
>>
>> > Although, code working with maps shouldn't use conj anyway.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Meikel
>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
