Clojure is designed to make your data accessible generically without getters/setters or other custom APIs so I would encourage direct access via keywords over accessor fns.
One consequence of this is that fns using a data structure have a direct coupling to the structure of the data. I prefer to see this as (usually) a feature. Accessor functions allow you to create a point of indirection and I have used that occasionally in very narrow circumstances where I did not want to commit to a data structure. However, I think this is the exception rather than the rule. defrecord (or add-ons like Prismatic's schema library) can formalize the contents of your entities and provide documentation and validation where and how you need it. On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:43:53 AM UTC-5, Colin Yates wrote: > > (This has been discussed before but as this is fairly subjective I am > interested in whether people's opinion has changed) > > What are people's experiences around using keywords or defined accessors > for navigating data structures in Clojure (assuming the use of maps)? Do > people prefer using "raw" keywords or do people define accessors. > > For example, given {:my-property 10} would people inline "my-property" or > define a (defn my-property [m] (:my-property m))? If you use keywords then > do you alias them (i.e. (def my-property :my-property)? > > My experience is that accessors become painful and restrictive really > quickly (navigating nested maps for example) so keywords are the way to go. > I tend to have a domain.clj which documents my domain and defines all the > important abstractions (i.e. (def my-property :my-property). I find this > very useful, combined with marginalia for documentation purposes. It also > offers some aid in refactoring as multiple abstractions might resolve to > the same keyword (i.e. value-group and bracket-group might resolve to > :group). > > But, to be blunt, it can be a little cumbersome. I also refer :as the > namespace, so instead of (get-in m [:a :b]) it is (get-in m [dom/a dom/b]). > > What are your thoughts (and any other hints/tips for maintaining large > Clojure code bases?) > -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.