Renaming accessor functions has the benefit of help from the compiler,
which will tell me if the function is not defined so I can easily
change the client code to use new name.
I think you could just define vars that evaluate to keywords. Adopting
the convention as follows gives protection
Hi Martin,
It's definitely a concern, keeping track of map keys and finding mis-typed
names. I always use keywords instead of accessor functions, though. If there
were functions, it's just one more thing to rename when refactoring.
Pre/post conditions are your friend here. Write a validator
I have suffered the exact same problem in large projects. Clojure's
associative style is extremely powerful and simple, together with powerful
sequence handling functions you could hurt yourself. The fact that it's
really easy to put together nested maps to represent your models, shouldn't
be
2011/8/7 Sebastián Galkin paras...@gmail.com
(- car :wheels first :tire :pressure)
This probably lacks abstraction, calling code needs to know every details
about how to get the pressure starting from a car model. If at some point
you decide to change your implementation and turn :wheels
Having evolved domain models in large Clojure projects over a long
time, I've been going back and forth on maps contra accessor functions
to opaque objects and I do see some merit in the latter even though
they are not idiomatic Clojure.
Basically, the crucial point for me is how well they work
