On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Filipe David Manana <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't like "get" because it clashes with the auto-imported erlang:get (for >> the process dictionary). >> >> Any reason to prefer a macro over an -import statement? > > Just to avoid doing the import everywhere and I still consider > get_value too long :P > >> >> Adam >> >> On Sep 27, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Filipe David Manana wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm getting tired of typing couch_util:get_value(......). It also >>> consumes too much horizontal space. It's probably the most used >>> function from couch_util. >>> I'm thinking of adding a new macro in couch_db.hrl, like: >>> >>> -define(value(Key, List), couch_util:get_value(Key, List)). >>> >>> -define(value(Key, List, Default), couch_util:get_value(Key, List, >>> Default)). >>> >>> Or maybe naming the macro just "get". >>> >>> Anyone against it? >>> >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> -- >>> Filipe David Manana, >>> [email protected], [email protected] >>> >>> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. >>> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. >>> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." >> >> > > > > -- > Filipe David Manana, > [email protected], [email protected] > > "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. > Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. > That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." >
I'd have to agree with Filipe that I'd probably rather see a macro than an import. For some reason or another imports tend to annoy me because its a layer of indirection between what's being called. Granted, in some of those cases its probably more of a sign that we need to break some of the various files into sub modules and what not. More at 10.
