Hi there,
I feel pretty strongly about this - I *much* prefer using APIs with
explicit options maps. The community is pretty divided though. I wrote up
the tradeoffs (which are well discussed here as well), as well as a list of
libraries using each style:
http://yellerapp.com/posts/2015-03-22-the-trouble-with-kwargs.html
To me, typing two extra characters ain't a big deal, but unrolling/rolling
up maps and not being able to manipulate options easily is a bunch of pain,
so I always choose explicit maps wherever possible.
On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 06:42:37 UTC+9, Leon Grapenthin wrote:
>
> Kwargs has clearly been designed for one purpose: A caller should have to
> type less.
>
> A simple rule to follow is to use kw args if the exposed thing is a
> function not expected to be used in functional composition or a certain
> DSLish kind of macro.
>
> If your exposed function will be used in functional composition more often
> than called in typed out code, with kwargs you are using the feature to its
> opposite purpose: People have to type even more.
>
> For an example, if your thing is called "load-config-file!" and is used in
> one or two places of code, use kwargs by all means. If your thing is called
> path-for and resolves an URL for a map of parameters, kwargs is a very
> unfortunate choice.
>
>
> On Saturday, April 26, 2014 at 12:41:22 AM UTC+2, Colin Fleming wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm working on an API at the moment, and I'm balancing whether to use
>> inline keyword args which I would destructure in the functions, or whether
>> to just pass an explicit params map as the last parameter. Comparison of
>> the two options in case I'm not explaining myself well:
>>
>> Kwargs:
>> (class/create-class :instance list
>> :description "My description"
>> :implements (keys class-methods)
>> :methods (calculate-my-methods))
>>
>> Map:
>> (class/create-class {:instance list
>> :description "My description"
>> :implements (keys class-methods)
>> :methods (calculate-my-methods)})
>>
>> A lot of APIs I've seen have favoured kwargs, and it undeniably makes for
>> some pretty code - Seesaw is the best example I've seen here, the API is a
>> thing of beauty. However it seems to me to have some issues:
>>
>> 1. If I want to delegate to another call from within an API function
>> and use the same arguments, it's really awkward: (apply delegate
>> (mapcat identity args)) or some similarly awful black juxt magic. Or
>> of course writing out all the parameters again, but that's even worse.
>> 2. It's more difficult to make parameters optional based on some
>> runtime criteria since the params are baked into the function call. I
>> guess
>> this is usually dealt with by making the calls handle nil for a
>> particular
>> parameter.
>>
>> Both of these are much easier when passing an explicit map. Any
>> preferences here, from either writing or using APIs like this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Colin
>>
>
--
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.
