On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:50:08 PM UTC-4, Mikera wrote: > > > I actually prefer the following style to both of the above: > > (defn camel->keyword* > [s] > (let [words (str/split s #"(?<=[a-z])(?=[A-Z])") > lc-words (map str/lower-case words) > joined-words (str/join "-" lc-words)] > (keyword joined-words))) > > Reasons: > - Your intermediate values are explicitly named, which helps to make the > code self-describing > - It is (marginally) more performant than the composed function case (I > think exactly matches the threading macro) > - You can use the intermediate values in more than one of the following > steps if needed, which can make refactoring / adding new features easier > - The ordering is (to me) more logical as it describes the stages of the > transformation in the order they are performed. > - It is less "Clever". Clever code is generally bad for maintenance and > future understanding. Both functional composition and the > code-transformation effects of the threading macro represent conceptual > overhead that you don't need to pay (in this case). >
Wow! I much prefer this style. I'm impressed that even though it's clearer (to me), it doesn't suffer in performance. Thanks for not only showing a clearer way to do this, but also outlining good arguments for why one might want to. -- 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.
