Well, even in this case how do lisp programmers typically name their structs vs their variables? In java I could make an "Employee" class and then an "employee" object and it was easy to distinguish between the two. If it's not kosher to uppercase a struct, what's the convention for something like that?
On Mar 19, 6:38 pm, ataggart <alex.tagg...@gmail.com> wrote: > As the doc for 'accessor notes, you should really eschew this stuff > altogether, and be more idiomatic by just using the keyword. If you > absolutely know that you need that "(slightly) more efficient" access, > thennamingthe struct with an uppercase first letter works, and isn't > too uncommon; besides this is a special-case performance issue, right? > > On Mar 19, 4:36 pm, strattonbrazil <strattonbra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If am creating accessors to access structures, how should they be > > named? > > > (defstruct employer :employee) > > (defstruct employee :employer) > > (def employee-name (accessor employee :employer)) > > (def employer-name (accessor employer :employee)) > > > In a situation where one struct is pointing to the other, is that the > > best accessor name? Since structs are lower case do they clash with > > variables and accessors ever? I could easily see myself doing > > > (def employee (...)) > > > Here, I assume it won't have any problems, but does it become > > problematic later? Especially since it seems that accessors can be in > > either order. > > > (defstruct vert :id :edgeId) > > (defstruct edge :id :vertId) > > (def vert (accessor edge :vert)) > > (def edge (accessor vert :edge)) > > > I know this could be easily resolved by changing the accessor > > definitions to get-vert and get-edge, but I was hoping it wouldn't be > > necessary. Once again, I'm bound to have a variable somewhere in my > > code called vert and edge. Java and Scala don't seem to have this > > problem. Especially using Scala's builtin getter setter feature, > > which has strick ordering like > > > edge.vert // returns the vert for this edge > > vert.edge // returns the edge for this vert > > > Is there a betternamingconvention to follow? get-vert and get- > > edge? Should structures ever be uppercase to distinguish them? That > > doesn't seem to be the lisp convention. In these cases it seems the > > struct name would > > never be a problem, but it seems I'm stuck between making a convenient > > accessor name and easily stomping over if making a convenient variable > > name. -- 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
