I see what you mean, does seem like a useful addition:
(defn update [m k f & args]
(assoc m k (apply f (k m) args)))
(update {:foo 0} :foo inc)
vs.
(assoc {:foo 0} :foo (inc (:foo {:foo 0})))
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:13 PM, mifrai wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quick reply and I understand that
Thanks for the quick reply and I understand that's the functionality
of it.
But just like get-in is the recursive form of get - I'm just wondering
why there's no singular form of update-in.
I know it's not much more work to go (update-in map [:single-key] conj
3) - but from experience there tend
Because update-in can use any function to do the update.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, mifrai wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering why there was no "update" to "update-in"? But there is
> an "assoc" to "assoc-in" and a "get" to a "get-in".
>
> - Mike
> >
>
--~--~-~--~~~
Hi,
I was wondering why there was no "update" to "update-in"? But there is
an "assoc" to "assoc-in" and a "get" to a "get-in".
- Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this
