On May 22, 12:03 am, Ben Mabey wrote:
> James Reeves wrote:
> > Hi folks,
>
> > I've been experimenting with the new type system in Clojure 1.2, but
> > I've hit something of a problem. If I define a record:
>
> > user=> (defrecord Foo [])
> > user.Foo
>
> > Then I can coerce a map into a type Fo
On 22 May 2010 04:03, Ben Mabey wrote:
> How about merging?
>
> user=> (merge (Bar. {}) m)
> #:user.Bar{:x 1, :y 2}
>
> This approach at least doesn't require that you know in advance the keys of
> Bar.
No, you still do:
user=> (defrecord Foo [x y z])
user.Foo
user=> (merge (Foo. {}) m)
No match
James Reeves wrote:
Hi folks,
I've been experimenting with the new type system in Clojure 1.2, but
I've hit something of a problem. If I define a record:
user=> (defrecord Foo [])
user.Foo
Then I can coerce a map into a type Foo like so:
user=> (def m {:x 1, :y 2})
#'/user/m
user=> (Foo. {} m
Good point. I keep falling into the trap of treating types like
classes. Types don't have inline constructors, because normal
functions perform that task well enough. If I want to coerce a map
into a type, I really need just a constructor function, rather than
the type itself.
In this case, someth
Hi,
user=> (defrecord Bar [x])
user.Bar
user=> (into (Bar. nil) {:x 1 :y 2})
#:user.Bar{:x 1, :y 2}
One still has to know, that Bar takes an argument, but one could provide
and API function which takes care of that.
user=> (defrecord Bar [x])
user.Bar
user=> (defn empty-bar [] (Bar. nil))
#'user
Hi folks,
I've been experimenting with the new type system in Clojure 1.2, but
I've hit something of a problem. If I define a record:
user=> (defrecord Foo [])
user.Foo
Then I can coerce a map into a type Foo like so:
user=> (def m {:x 1, :y 2})
#'/user/m
user=> (Foo. {} m)
#:user.Foo{:x 1, :y
