On Sep 5, 8:46 am, Terje Dahl <te...@terjedahl.no> wrote: > Ref: Stuart Halloway's talk: "Simplicity": > > http://blip.tv/clojure/stuart-halloway-simplicity-ain-t-easy-4842694 > > Found via reading list:http://clojure.com/reading.html) > > At one point in his talk he states that defrecord is in fact basically > "documented, named [typed] structure". > (as opposed to a standard map). > This I thought was quite genius. > > But on further reflection I wonder if: > > A: Doesn't this contradict another Clojure rationale: > "It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than > to have 10 functions operate on 10 data structures." - Alan J. > Perlis http://clojure.org/rationale The types created by defrecord implement the same interfaces as maps, so they can be used as maps.
> B: Is this not a form of optimization - (which may be premature)? If you are going to be defining protocols that work with your domain constructs, using a defrecord type from the start wouldn't be premature. -- 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
