?getv is what the cool kids would do.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
