Maybe they want config in the least variance argument so it can be partial'ed?
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Jim Crossley <j...@crossleys.org> wrote: > We used kwargs for options extensively in Immutant 1.x, and we're moving > to explicit maps for Immutant 2.x, for the reasons cited above. > > It's not obvious to me why the "bad" release-sharks example on the coding > standards page [1] is bad. Why should the optional config be the "least > variance argument"? > > I had to look up "laudable", btw. It's one of those good words that sounds > bad. :) > > [1] http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Library+Coding+Standards > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Colin Fleming < > colin.mailingl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> And thinking about it (after pressing "send", of course), you'd get the >> same benefit from destructuring an explicit map in the function parameter >> anyway, wouldn't you? >> >> >> On 30 April 2014 22:11, Colin Fleming <colin.mailingl...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> But that's only true for the variables which are explicitly destructured >>> in the function definition, which in my experience many are not - they're >>> often later picked out of an ":as args" argument, perhaps dependent on a >>> combination of the parameters which are explicitly destructured. Seesaw >>> never does this, for example. I think it's dangerous to rely on this rather >>> than the documentation since it's often an incomplete view of what the >>> function requires. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> On 30 April 2014 21:03, Joachim De Beule <joachim.de.be...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> my two cents: >>>> >>>> The extra readability to users when using keyword args also comes from >>>> the fact that a function's options are explicit in its signature. So during >>>> development, instead of having to look them up in the docs or in the code, >>>> my emacs mini-buffer simply shows them to me. Although I do agree with all >>>> the good reasons against keywords arguments, to me this is still the >>>> decisive reason to prefer them... >>>> >>>> Joachim >>>> >>>> Op woensdag 30 april 2014 05:41:29 UTC+2 schreef James Reeves: >>>> >>>>> On 30 April 2014 03:54, Sean Corfield <se...@corfield.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I still think the keyword argument approach is far more readable to >>>>>> _users_ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
