This will change in Clojure 1.2, with defstruct superseded by deftype,
and with capitalization for defprotocols and deftypes. You might want
to compare this Clojure example:
http://github.com/relevance/labrepl/blob/master/src/solutions/rock_paper_scissors.clj
to the OO solutions at
http://www.rubyquiz.com/quiz16.html
If you download the labrepl project you can run it to get instructions
for building the rock/paper/scissors example step-by-step.
Stu
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.
--
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.
