Hi all,
I have a function
*(defn foo [a b & {:keys [c d] :or {c "C" d "D"}
:as opt-args}] [a b opt-args])*
I want to let users call *(foo 1 2 :e "E")* and get *[1 2 {:e "E", :c "C",
:d "D"}]*. But *:or* only affects the binding of *c* and *d* - not
*opt-args*. So you get *[1 2 {:e "E"}]*.
So I use merge:
(defn foo [a b & {:keys [c d]
:or {c "C" d "D"}
:as opt-args}]
(let [opt-args (merge {:c c :d d} opt-args)]
[a b opt-args]))
So what about introducing destructuring with *:merge*? Like this:
(defn foo [a b & {:merge {:c "C" :d "D"}
:as opt-args}]
[a b opt-args])
In this case I don't even need bindings for c and d. But I could imagine
that this binding form does create those bindings. Or make it look more
like :keys:
(defn foo [a b & {:merge {c "C" d "D"}
:as opt-args}]
[a b opt-args])
Does this make sense? Is there currently a more elegant way to get this
functionality without the merge I use?
What do you think?
- Henrik
--
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
---
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
