I do think there's a legitimate role for routine use of accessors in some contexts, btw. I seem to have been traumatized by my experience with them, however. :-)
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:48:04 AM UTC-5, Mars0i wrote: > > One of the things I hated about Java when I did Java programming for a > living, a number of years ago, was having to define accessors, over, and > over, and over again for each class. What a waste of time! (Not to > mention the instance in which we made a client move to using paper rather > than software for three days while I tracked down a null pointer exception > resulting from forgetting to modify a name after copying and pasting from > another accessor.) Granted, there are tools that can automate this process > (we couldn't afford them then), but why? Why do you need a special tool > just to get the language to do what you're usually going to need, anyway, > by default. > > Why define an accessor when Clojure has already defined one for you--i.e. > the keyword. (Unless you need it. I define an accessor when I need two > different record types to return the same kind of data even though they > don't share the same internal structure.) > > mho > -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
