+1
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:25 PM, ka wrote:
> I'm also stuck with the same issues: 1. no option to get string keys
> 2. I don't understand, why do libs go through the trouble of
> downcasing ?
>
> Having said that I totally agree with the point Ryan makes: >> A
> greater feature of clojure is i
I'm also stuck with the same issues: 1. no option to get string keys
2. I don't understand, why do libs go through the trouble of
downcasing ?
Having said that I totally agree with the point Ryan makes: >> A
greater feature of clojure is its extensibility. What I am after is a
generalization of t
Sean,
I entirely agree that the use of keywords as map keys is a feature of
clojure (and a great one, at that), and that converting result set
column names to keywords is a feature of resultset-seq. A greater
feature of clojure is its extensibility. What I am after is a
generalization of the func
+1
On Dec 1, 8:01 pm, Ryan Twitchell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm not too happy with how resultset-seq down-cases column names and
> turns them into keywords, as I would prefer to work with string keys
> in some cases. I came up with the following change to give the caller
> a choice to remap column
Using keywords in the resultset map is a feature. It is very common
to write something like this;
(map :your-column results)
This takes advantage of the fact that keywords implement IFn. To the
best of my knowledge SQL isn't case sensitive, downcasing the column
names makes sense too, since it
