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 <fraim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 tends be really good reasons behind
> these kinds of decisions and I'm just curious.
>
> On Apr 29, 4:05 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because update-in can use any function to do the update.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, mifrai <fraim...@gmail.com> 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
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
