stract class for which there is no constructor.
You could gen-class as needed to create concrete interface
implementations or subclasses. This would probably be a terrible idea
if unbean were for general use, but if you're focused on testing it
could keep things cleaner (and prevent you clutteri
Thanks. I will definitely be using this function... keep me up to
date on any changes.
Bill wrote:
> > It occurs to me that the "unbean" function could be very useful when
> > writing tests for code that calls Java objects.
>
> Yes, that is ex
> It occurs to me that the "unbean" function could be very useful when
> writing tests for code that calls Java objects.
Yes, that is exactly the use I have in mind.
Bill
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscrib
It occurs to me that the "unbean" function could be very useful when
writing tests for code that calls Java objects. Anyone have thoughts
on its use in this way?
On Feb 24, 9:18 pm, ".Bill Smith" wrote:
> > I tend to associate "bean" with Java beans, so the
> I tend to associate "bean" with Java beans, so the naming seems to be
> reversed IMHO: "bean" should convert a Clojure map to a Java bean, and
> "unbean" should do the reverse.
Agreed the name is awkward.
> It's getting late here so I don'
On Feb 24, 10:30 pm, ".Bill Smith" wrote:
> I finally got around to writing an "unbean" function. As the name
> suggests, it's the reverse of the bean function: it takes a class and
> a map of property name/values and returns an instance of that class
>
I finally got around to writing an "unbean" function. As the name
suggests, it's the reverse of the bean function: it takes a class and
a map of property name/values and returns an instance of that class
with those property values. So for example, if class House has
prop
