When I see mailing list posts like this I like to play the devil's advocate
a bit (at least in my own mind) and try to find problems with including a
given patch in Clojure.
A few things to consider:
1) There are really three answers to patches: "yes", "no" and "not now".
That is to say, because a patch hasn't been accepted doesn't mean it's bad,
it just means that it may not be the right time for the patch or perhaps
there are other tickets more pressing for the version of Clojure under
development. So don't let the time since patch creation disappoint you, it
doesn't mean all hope is lost.
2) Now I ask myself: "Why would this be in core?" Looking at this function
I see something interesting, there's nothing about this patch that couldn't
be added as a utility function in some separate project. So why would I
want to force the maintainers of Clojure, now and in the future, to support
some extra logic? The best reason I can come up with is that it saves me
copy-and-pasting some util function around, or perhaps it keeps me from
including another util dependency in my projects. Is that convenience worth
the cost? I don't know, and that's not my job, thankfully :) .
3) Now I ask my self: "When have I needed this feature?" And sadly, I can't
think of a case. That's not to say I haven't needed to call assoc-in on
many path/value pairs, but when I do I often use a construct like this:
(reduce-kv assoc-in {}
{[:a :b] 42
[:c :d] 43
[:d] 11})
In fact, I've been thinking about this for several days, and I have yet to
think of a situation where I'd prefer 'apply' over reduce. And I can't
think of a situation where I've need multiple hand-written arguments to
assoc-in.
I also think I haven't needed this functionality because I tend to prefer
namespaced keywords and flat maps. Or when I do have nested maps, I use
something like prewalk to do my work. This is anecdotal evidence, but it's
my experience.
None of these things are huge, but that's my thought process when reading
about patches.
Timothy
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Łukasz Kożuchowski <
lukasz.kozuchow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the tip. I imagine the patch author is much more sad (it's been
> one year...).
>
> Łukasz Kożuchowski
>
> --
> 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.
