+10
If the library provided (this :arg style) just to be a convenience for me,
then that purpose completely backfired the moment I had to type (apply
your-fn (apply concat my-args)).
That unnecessary dance was the inspiration for me buying applyconcat.com
(empty; site ideas welcome).
-Steven
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:27:13 AM UTC-5, Colin Jones wrote:
>
> +1 James.
>
> I can't count the number of times I've found myself unrolling an options
> map with a dance like this apply / apply concat.
>
> And don't forget that the function itself then has to roll this options
> map back up to operate on it, which syntactically isn't all that bad, but
> it usually seems like a lot of unnecessary work, when the payoff is just to
> omit a set of curly braces. Maybe it's not even that big of a performance
> issue, but I find there's a mental overhead for me.
>
> Other considerations:
> - If you need two options maps for some reason (maybe one to delegate
> elsewhere), one will have to be non-varargs.
> - Should the consumer of the function be required to pass *some* options?
> If so, using varargs options means even more work to verify that.
>
> I won't go so far as to say that I never use the varargs/unrolled version.
> I'm sure they're great if you always call a function with literal values,
> like the `(release-sharks 2 :laser-beams true)` example. But I do find them
> painful more often than not.
>
> - Colin
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:52:51 AM UTC-5, James Reeves wrote:
>>
>> I somewhat disagree with the coding standards in certain cases. If you
>> have a large number of options, you may find yourself creating the option
>> map programmatically. In which case:
>>
>> (release-sharks 2 options)
>>
>> Is preferable to:
>>
>> (apply release-sharks 2 (apply concat options))
>>
>> - James
>>
>> On 18 June 2013 06:32, dmirylenka <daniilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> According, to the library coding standards, the first is better:
>>>
>>> (release-sharks 2 :laser-beams true) ; good
>>> (release-sharks 2 {:laser-beams true}) ; bad
>>>
>>> http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/Library+Coding+Standards
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:26:15 PM UTC+12, Omer Iqbal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>
>>>> What'c considered more idiomatic when having multiple, optional
>>>> arguments?
>>>>
>>>> (defn foo1 [a b & args]
>>>> (let [opts (apply hash-map args]
>>>> ...))
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> (defn foo2 [a b opts]
>>>> ...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Omer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to clo...@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+u...@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+u...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
--
--
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.
