My rule of thumb for this is if that's something that will be "static" (as in, set once in the source and never changes) kw options are fine, if it is likely to be manipulated, is the result of some previous computation, then a map fits better.
apply also has a performance cost that's not always welcome. On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:38:55 PM UTC+2, Luc wrote: > > I use destructuring most of the time, the main benefits I see are runtime > validation > of typo errors in the option names, better doc strings and the ability to > provide defaults > where nil does not make any sense. > > Of course you may need to use apply to pass options in turn to another fn > but I found out that this happens most of the time internally, not in the > public API. > > Sub-selecting options with select-key makes things easier to read when > pruning > options used by internal fns. > > Marginally slower but less brain estate is required to remember valid > options. > > If the apply stuff gets repeatedly in the way, then use a macro to hide > it. > > Luc P. > > > > -- > Softaddicts<lprefo...@softaddicts.ca <javascript:>> sent by ibisMail from > my ipad! > -- -- 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.
