Replying to myself... Hmmm, of course, defining that function wouldn't solve the problem of clashes.
On Wednesday, 10 April 2013 14:03:47 UTC+1, Simon Katz wrote: > > I'm wondering how two things fit together (and I suspect they don't). > > First, if I define a record type, e.g. > (defrecord Foo [x y z]) > I can access fields using keywords as functions: > (:x (->Foo 1 2 3)) => 1 > > Second, Clojure supports namespace-qualified keywords, presumably because > it's possible that different libraries might want to use the same keyword > for different purposes. > > But if I use defrecord I get unqualified keywords, and the possibility of > clashes with other libraries. > > I guess I could define my API to not include the keywords and define an > API function like this: > (defn x [foo] (:x foo)) > but I'm not sure I like that much. > > Are there better or more idiomatic approaches? > -- -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
