Ohh, ok that makes sense now. Thanks.
On Jan 6, 1:01 pm, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 06.01.2012 um 18:23 schrieb Chris McBride:
>
> > (defrecord Person [name address])
>
> > (def bob (map->Person {:name "bob"}))
>
> > (prn (conj bob {:address "123 main st"})) ;#user.Person{:name
> > "bob", :address "123 main st"}
> > (prn (conj {:address "123 main st"} bob)) ;{:name "bob", :address
> > nil}
>
> > The first print statement behaves how I would expect, the second one
> > does not. Why wouldnt it fill the address field on the map?
>
> The address field on the record is nil. Hence it overwrites the address field
> of the map. Think of merge. This has nothing to do with records. It's the
> same with maps.
>
> user=> (conj {:a nil} {:a 1})
> {:a 1}
> user=> (conj {:a 1} {:a nil})
> {:a nil}
>
> The fields in records are always there. Unlike maps where there are only the
> keys you specified.
>
> user=> (map->Person {:name "Meikel"})
> #user.Person{:name "Meikel", :address nil}
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Sincerely
> Meikel
--
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
