On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:44 PM, mikel <mev...@mac.com> wrote: > Clojure doesn't have to provide these facilities (though I wouldn't > mind if it did); it just needs to stay out of my way when I decide I > need to add them.
Yeah, as much as I like maps, I feel like there are several common uses cases for maps that require more work in Clojure than other languages. The most obvious example is tagged structs. In Clojure, you need to do a defstruct, and then make your own custom constructor that adds the tag, possibly another custom constructor that emulates struct-map but adds the tag, and possibly a predicate that tests for the tag. I particularly like the way the Mozart language makes tagged structs (they call them records) one of the core data structures that the language is built around. See section 3.6 at http://www.mozart-oz.org/home/doc/tutorial/node3.html I can see why the existing system is more flexible (you can have more than one tag, or no tag, or make the tag part of the metadata, or use different labels for the tag other than :tag or :type), but I keep feeling like 90% of the time I'd be happy to just use a standard tagged struct. The good news is that it's easy to write a macro to do all the boilerplate. The bad news is that everyone will write different macros that tag these structures in different ways, and it's not clear to me how well code written based on different tagging standards will coexist. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
