> Am 31.01.2010 um 18:29 schrieb Daniel Werner:
>> If I understand this arity version of get-in correctly, won't the
>> default also be used if the value stored in the nested data structure
>> evaluates to something false-y?
Thanks for spotting that early!
On 1 February 2010 05:46, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> (if-let [l (reduce get m (pop ks))]
> (get l (peek ks) not-found)
> not-found))
Good idea, but peek and pop work differently on vectors and sequences,
seeing get-in is not constrained to use vectors this could lead to an
unexpected behavior:
user=> (def m {:a 1, :b 2, :c {:d 3, :e 4}, :f nil})
#'user/m
user=> (get-in3 m '(:c :e) 2) ;peek-pop keys applied in unexpected order
2
user=> (get-in2 m '(:c :e) 2) ;expected result
4
I've replaced the patch on assembla with this:
(reduce #(get %1 %2 not-found) m ks)))
And added test cases for the falsey returns and seq args
Regards,
Tim.
--
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
