The answer depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
Does this simpler definition allow you to call blah in the ways you want to?
(defn blah
[& {:as blah-map}]
;; do stuff with blah-map)
--Steve
On Oct 10, 2010, at 12:39 AM, Grayswx wrote:
> Recently, I've been coding functions that take a map as follows. I
> feel like it is slightly messy, though, and was wondering if any one
> else could think of a reason not to do it:
>
> (defn blah
> ([blah-map]
> ;; do stuff with blah-map)
> ([key val & {:as blah-map}]
> (blah (assoc blah-map key val))))
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
