I do as Dan does. Sometimes I prefer to use defrecord instead of a regular map, e.g. when there are mutable values involved. In such a case I always define a constructor for the record instances.
mimmo
On 22 Apr 2014, at 12:06, Colin Yates <colin.ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dan,
>
> One benefit is compile time safety and the refactoring I mentioned.
>
> But yes, I am coming around to the notion of just using raw keywords...
>
> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 10:49:33 AM UTC+1, Dan Kersten wrote:
> I've personally always used keywords. I don't see any value in aliasing :foo
> to foo. For navigating nested maps, get-in, update-in and assoc-in with
> keywords seem natural and practical to me.
>
>
> On 22 April 2014 10:43, Colin Yates <colin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (This has been discussed before but as this is fairly subjective I am
> interested in whether people's opinion has changed)
>
> What are people's experiences around using keywords or defined accessors for
> navigating data structures in Clojure (assuming the use of maps)? Do people
> prefer using "raw" keywords or do people define accessors.
>
> For example, given {:my-property 10} would people inline "my-property" or
> define a (defn my-property [m] (:my-property m))? If you use keywords then
> do you alias them (i.e. (def my-property :my-property)?
>
> My experience is that accessors become painful and restrictive really quickly
> (navigating nested maps for example) so keywords are the way to go. I tend
> to have a domain.clj which documents my domain and defines all the important
> abstractions (i.e. (def my-property :my-property). I find this very useful,
> combined with marginalia for documentation purposes. It also offers some aid
> in refactoring as multiple abstractions might resolve to the same keyword
> (i.e. value-group and bracket-group might resolve to :group).
>
> But, to be blunt, it can be a little cumbersome. I also refer :as the
> namespace, so instead of (get-in m [:a :b]) it is (get-in m [dom/a dom/b]).
>
> What are your thoughts (and any other hints/tips for maintaining large
> Clojure code bases?)
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
