user> (defn inc-vals [m]
(into (empty m) (zipmap (keys m) (map inc (vals m)
#'user/inc-vals
user> (inc-vals {:a 1 :b 2})
{:b 3, :a 2}
user> (inc-vals (struct (create-struct :a :b) 1 2))
{:a 2, :b 3}
user> (= *1 *2)
true
So what's the problem (other than printing differently)?
--
You
> as I said, structs are an optimization on maps, that optimization
> doesn't work for empty structs, so empty structs "of course" don't
> make sense
For me structs are more than just optimizations. They add documentary
information to the map, which is a great feature for readability.
Optimization
"empty classes in Java" what does that mean?
as I said, structs are an optimization on maps, that optimization
doesn't work for empty structs, so empty structs "of course" don't
make sense
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Andreas Wenger
wrote:
>> I think your use of "workaround" is pejorative.
> I think your use of "workaround" is pejorative. And can it even be
> called a work around if it is a best practice even when there is
> nothing to work around?
I just can't understand why throwing an exception should be more
useful than returning some object you can actually work with.
I wouldn'
> Just another option to consider:
> {:type :person, :name "Bill", :age 20}
Why then use defstruct at all? I think defstruct is useful, but it
would be even
more useful if I had nothing to fear if it "runs empty" sometime
because of
little design changes. It might be only experimental and later I
2010/1/20 Andreas Wenger :
> (struct-map person :name "Bill")
Hi Andreas,
Just another option to consider:
{:type :person, :name "Bill", :age 20}
I'll steer clear of discussing the original question :)
Regards,
Tim.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
I think your use of "workaround" is pejorative. And can it even be
called a work around if it is a best practice even when there is
nothing to work around?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Andreas Wenger
wrote:
>> how is that not an argument? I'm pretty sure I just used it as one.
>
> What I want
> how is that not an argument? I'm pretty sure I just used it as one.
What I wanted to say is that you are completely right, if you say that
it is easy to create a workaround.
But although doing this is easy, this does not mean that we should not
fix this inconsistency (or do you see none?) anyway
how is that not an argument? I'm pretty sure I just used it as one.
keep in mind defstruct is largely to be superseded by deftype.
http://clojure.org/contributing
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Andreas Wenger
wrote:
>> I fail to see how it requires changing a lot of code. it just means
>> you
> > And documentary style is lost. Would be ok though, but not optimal.
>
> On the contrary, I think
>
> {:name "Bill" :age 23 :friends 20}
>
> is better than
>
> (struct-map person "Bill" 23 20)
Please review the definition of struct-map...
Actually we seem to have the same opinion! Even be
> I fail to see how it requires changing a lot of code. it just means
> you need to change the place where you create your maps. which if you
> are also type tagging them is a lot of repetitive code, so it should
> already be factored out into a function, so then you just switch out
> one function.
And documentary style is lost. Would be ok though, but not optimal.
On the contrary, I think
{:name "Bill" :age 23 :friends 20}
is better than
(struct-map person "Bill" 23 20)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this gr
I fail to see how it requires changing a lot of code. it just means
you need to change the place where you create your maps. which if you
are also type tagging them is a lot of repetitive code, so it should
already be factored out into a function, so then you just switch out
one function.
On Tue,
> I think Andreas's point is that there's a discontinuity:
>
> 0 required keys: map
> 1 required key: struct-map
> 2 required keys: struct-map
> ...
That's exactly the point! If I change only a little detail in my
program, this can have impact on a huge part of my program.
I can not see any reaso
On 20 Jan., 00:56, Kevin Downey wrote:
> clojure structs are an optimized version of maps for a set of shared
> keys. if you don't have a defined set of shared keys you just have a
> map. so by all means, use a map
You're talking about the implementation in the background, but I am
talking about
clojure structs are an optimized version of maps for a set of shared
keys. if you don't have a defined set of shared keys you just have a
map. so by all means, use a map
I think Andreas's point is that there's a discontinuity:
0 required keys: map
1 required key: struct-map
2 required keys: st
clojure structs are an optimized version of maps for a set of shared
keys. if you don't have a defined set of shared keys you just have a
map. so by all means, use a map
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Andreas Wenger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know why defstruct without providing any keys
17 matches
Mail list logo
