Another common use case: leveraging the thrush operator.
(- odd-coll :foo :bar :baz)
On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:57:15 AM UTC+1, tbc++ wrote:
I use them sometimes in transversing deep maps:
(def odd-coll [{:foo {:bar {:baz 42}}}
{:foo {:bar {:baz 43}}}])
(def
Having both options available also allows you to make
NullPointerException-averse decisions as appropriate.
That is, in this function:
(defn foo [a-map]
(a-map :foo))
I'm potentially exposed to an NPE if the given map is nil. By rewriting it:
(defn foo [a-map]
(:foo a-map))
I avoid this
I thought it was pretty interesting to treat maps as functions, and even
more intrigued at treating keywords as functions as well.
What does this gain from a language design perspective, that you cannot get
with (get map keyword) or ever (map keyword)? Why the additional option of
(keyword
You can avoid superfluous anonymous functions. For example, this:
(map #(get % :id) my-sequence)
vs this:
(map :id my-sequence)
Cheers,
Dave
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jonathon McKitrick
jmckitr...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought it was pretty interesting to treat maps as functions,
I use them sometimes in transversing deep maps:
(def odd-coll [{:foo {:bar {:baz 42}}}
{:foo {:bar {:baz 43}}}])
(def find-it (comp :baz :bar :foo))
(map find-it odd-coll)
; [42 43]
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Dave Ray dave...@gmail.com wrote:
You can avoid
