On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Lee Spector wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Aravindh Johendran wrote:
>> Are struct-maps really deprecated?
It's a good question.
Christophe Grand thinks they're "half deprecated" here:
http://www.adrianmouat.com/bit-bucket/2011/02/common-lisp-clojure-and-e
Thank everybody for the discussion. I am now aware of some pitfalls in
using defrecord.
For me, I like to have type information associated with my data. I still
prefer defrecord over map in general, but I will proceed with more caution.
I think some pitfalls here are not due to the greatness o
On Jul 23, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Aravindh Johendran wrote:
> Are struct-maps really deprecated? I don't see a deprecation warning anywhere
> (clojure website, source, api, etc.). All I see is the following line in
> clojure website.
> ---> Note: Most uses of StructMaps would now be better served by
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Ben Mabey wrote:
> Another downside I have ran into that hasn't been mentioned is with (Java)
> serialization. If you are using records and defining protocols inline you
> can serialize the record just fine, however if you change the implementation
> then all of
On Monday, July 23, 2012 8:20:40 AM UTC-4, Lee wrote:
>
>
> Considering that maps do have upsides compared to records in some cases
> (as indicated, e.g., by Chas's flowchart), and that struct-maps add a
> couple of handy features in the context of some uses of maps, can anybody
> say why stru
On 7/22/12 5:42 PM, Warren Lynn wrote:
I plan to change all my major data structures to records instead of
plain maps. Since record has everything a map provides, I figure there
won't be any harm. But is that really so? Would appreciate the
opinions from people who know better.
Another downs
Considering that maps do have upsides compared to records in some cases (as
indicated, e.g., by Chas's flowchart), and that struct-maps add a couple of
handy features in the context of some uses of maps, can anybody say why
struct-maps are deprecated?
-Lee
On Jul 23, 2012, at 1:07 AM, Takah
there's also the reader literal
user=> (defrecord foo [bar baz])
user.foo
user=> #user.foo{:baz 1 :bar 2}
#user.foo{:bar 2, :baz 1}
2012/7/23 Takahiro Hozumi
> Baishampayan
> I didn't know `map->Foo`. Thank you for the infomation!
>
>
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:11:45 PM UTC+9, Baishampayan G
Baishampayan
I didn't know `map->Foo`. Thank you for the infomation!
On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:11:45 PM UTC+9, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Takahiro Hozumi
> wrote:
> > 2. The construction of record depends on an order of arguments.
> > Sometimes, I feel tha
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Takahiro Hozumi wrote:
> 2. The construction of record depends on an order of arguments.
> Sometimes, I feel that a lack of construction with key-value style is not
> convenient.
(defrecord Foo ...
will give you `->Foo` & `map->Foo` for free. The second one acce
I think defrecord has 5 downsides compared to regular map.
1. The literal of regular map is eye-friendly and portable.
However I still don't know how helpful instant literals added in clojure
1.4 is for records.
2. The construction of record depends on an order of arguments.
Sometimes, I feel th
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Warren Lynn wrote:
> Could you elaborate a little bit more? I know there is a chart, but the
> chart does not tell you why.
Hmm, I thought the flowchart gave pretty good reasons, sorry :(
Records aren't as flexible and you'll lose the type anyway when
general map
I don't think you're in the minority. I prefer regular maps to records
> in general. struct-map was deprecated "a long time ago" (in Clojure
> 1.2). clojure.java.jdbc stopped using struct-map a while back - at the
> recommendation of Clojure/core - in favor of regular maps.
>
> Chas Emerick's
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Lee Spector wrote:
> I know I'm in the minority but I happen to prefer maps to records, and in
> fact I really like struct-maps which I gather may (?) not be long for this
> world. Nonetheless, since you asked, following are two old messages in which
> I attempt
On Jul 22, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Warren Lynn wrote:
> I plan to change all my major data structures to records instead of plain
> maps. Since record has everything a map provides, I figure there won't be any
> harm. But is that really so? Would appreciate the opinions from people who
> know better.
15 matches
Mail list logo
