I think I see the goal now: to allow calling with either a map or sequential
key-value pairs.
What you have appears correct and minimal for that purpose.
For a function taking a sequence, you can accomplish something similar without
a second arity by choosing to call directly or call using apply. For a map the
apply case isn't as simple.
Given:
(defn blah
[& {:as blah-map}]
;; do stuff with blah-map)
(def m {:1 :2 :3 :4})
To call it "apply-style" with a map, you could use:
(apply blah (reduce concat m))
--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
