It's generally considered better practice to pass maps to a function instead of keyword arguments. This also has the nice side-effect of making it easier to call programmatically from other functions. For example:
(my-func 1 2 (assoc default-opts :c 42)) is way cleaner than (apply my-func 1 2 (mapcat identity (assoc default-opts :c 42))) So don't do keyword argument, it rarely works out well. Instead accept a map of options and validate it with asserts, ignoring "extra" data. A map is a map, it shouldn't matter if it contains extra data. Timothy On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 7:21 PM, James Reeves <ja...@booleanknot.com> wrote: > https://github.com/roomkey/annotate is another possibility > > - James > > On 23 August 2015 at 02:06, Colin Yates <colin.ya...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Dave, it _isn't_ an Illegal argument though :-), your destructuring >> is simply ignoring that parameter. >> >> However, I get the pain and solutions might be (in order of 'heavyness'): >> - http://blog.fogus.me/2009/12/21/clojures-pre-and-post/ >> - https://github.com/Prismatic/schema >> - http://typedclojure.org/ >> >> HTH >> >> Dave Tenny writes: >> >> > I sure wish Clojure would generate "IllegalArgumentException" in the >> > following sample case: >> > >> > (defn foo [a b & {:keys [c d]}] 1) >> > (foo 1 2 :e 5) ; blithely ignores :e 5 >> > >> > I understand that Clojure's destructuring things are very nice, and more >> > powerful than Common Lisp's, and I like >> > that when I need it. >> > >> > However I can't tell you how many times I've been bitten by this. Some >> > simple typo or other other parameter name error on keyword arguments >> > with untended and way-too-long-to-debug consequences. >> > >> > In my mind, on this subject, Common Lisp lambda lists got this right and >> > Clojure gets a poor grade. >> > Something about being doomed to repeat history. In Common Lisp, if you >> > really wanted to allow other (arbitrary) keywords you'd >> > just use &allow-other-keys. >> > >> > Maybe clojure should only allow the above case to go >> un-complained-about if >> > :as was specified for the map. >> > >> > If there's some automatic enforcement I'm missing that comes with 'defn' >> > please let me know, I'm still learning the language. >> > >> > I've thought more that once about making a common lisp DEFUN statement >> that >> > maps to DEFN but implements >> > lambda list semantics (including 'supplied-p' parameters). I've just >> been >> > too lazy to do it. >> > >> > It would also likely perform poorly after injecting the additional >> > checks/rearrangements into the function on top of what Clojure has >> already >> > done, >> > so I suppose it would have to be taken a step further so that it didn't >> > generate DEFN expressions at all but was implemented at DEFN's level as >> > a seperately named form. >> > >> > Tips welcome. Just thinking aloud. >> > >> > - Dave >> >> -- >> Sent with my mu4e >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- “One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that–lacking zero–they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.” (Robert Firth) -- 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.
