On 2 February 2010 17:41, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > I would get rid of the if-let.
Ah yes! Ok patch updated to: + ([m ks not-found] + (if (seq ks) + (get (reduce get m (butlast ks)) (last ks) not-found) + m))) Note that (seq ks) will throw an illegal argument exception if ks is 5 for instance, if ks is nil or empty the original map is preserved. > Hmm.. I thought of get-in as a recursive application of get. get-in > now diverges from get. Maybe this version should be called "unwrap" > instead? Zero applications of get to a map might be thought of as the map itself. Are you thinking of a particular scenario where throwing an exception would be better? 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
