I do a lot of work with hash as the result of JSON-RPC calls, with considerable
use of hash-ref. In most places, I've replaced the hash with a local result
of transforming the hash to a procedure so that I can:
(stuff 'COMPANY)
rather than
(hash-ref stuff 'COMPANY)
Of course, the setup call to exchange the hash for the procedure takes another
line, such that I only bother on longer functions with repeated benefit.
It certainly would be handy from a succinctness standpoint if a hash acted like
a procedure (Any -> Any). Noticing that struct can be a procedure? via a
property , I wonder if there's a way for hash? and procedure? to both hold true.
It's more than simply saving the 9 letters of hash-ref followed by a space.
Performance is not an issue and given a curt enough representation, I'd prefer
calling it twice rather than making a local define. My current choices are:
; current STYLE #1
(define (current-rpc-receiver data)
(define company (hash-ref data 'COMPANY #f))
(when company
(db-exec … company))
; current STYLE #2
(define (curt-style-rpc-receiver data)
(define HF (hash->procedure data))
(when (HF 'COMPANY)
(db-exec …. (HF 'COMPANY))
; what would be handier….
(define (handy-style data)
(when (data 'COMPANY)
(db-exec … (data 'COMPANY))
Thanks in advance for any advice leading to more succinct hash access.
------
John Griffin, CTO
IT Talent Team, LLC
www.ittalentteam.com
855-488-8326
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
