To be clear, I actually agree with Stuart. I would really like to dig into
this topic and hear everyones thoughts on this; it's such a large piece of
Clojure's private and public API.
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 1:53:37 PM UTC-5, adrian...@mail.yu.edu
wrote:
>
> Metadata fields proliferate
Metadata fields proliferate throughout the standard Clojure value and
reference types. It seems odd that one would suggest that this seemingly
well supported feature should not be taken advantage of except in very
narrow circumstances. What is the rationale for such robust support for
runtime m
Almost never.
Seriously, anything important enough to be included in your program's input
or output is almost certainly important enough to be *data*, not metadata.
And the non-equality-checking semantics of metadata are confusing.
About the only place I've found metadata to be worthwhile is
m
Solussd is absolutely correct, but maybe even more simplistic (or easier to
grasp) explanation would be to use metadata if you don't want the
additional (meta)data to change the equality semantics of the map, for
example:
(def test-desc1 {:number-of-threads 10})
(def test-desc2 ^{:integration t
Yes- when the data you want to add shouldn't affect the value of the map.
---
Joe R. Smith
@solussd
> On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:10 AM, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
>
> Is there a rule of thumb or set of use cases when metadata is a more elegant
> solution than simply adding more entries to a map or
Is there a rule of thumb or set of use cases when metadata is a more
elegant solution than simply adding more entries to a map or record?
--
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
No
