Using the array-map sounds like a good work-around when you know there are
potential key collisions. It would also allow you to swap keys reliably using
a temporary key.
(rename-keys {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3} (array-map :a :tmp :b :a :tmp :b))
;; {:b 1, :a 2, :c 3}
The larger question is: Should
(clojure.set/rename-keys {1 :a 2 :b 3 :c} {1 2 2 3 3 4})
returns
{4 :a}
That's caused by the collision between new and existing keys. Renaming
1 to 2 blows [2 :b]: {2 :a, 3 :c}; then renaming 2 to 3 blows [3 :c],
leaving {3 :a}; and the last just renames 3 to 4: {4 :a}.
--
You received
This renames keys to avoid collisions, using an array map to preserve
the order of the keys:
user= (rename-keys {1 :a 2 :b 3 :c} (array-map 3 4 2 3 1 2))
{2 :a, 3 :b, 4 :c}
On May 11, 7:22 am, Armando Blancas armando_blan...@yahoo.com wrote:
(clojure.set/rename-keys {1 :a 2 :b 3 :c} {1 2 2 3
Hello everybody,
I tried to use clojure.set/rename-keys .. I kind of felt it has a little
odd behaviour... for example ..
(clojure.set/rename-keys {1 :a 2 :b 3 :c} {1 2 2 3 3 4})
returns
{4 :a}
I think a more reasonable behavior would be to have it return
{2 :a 3 :b 4 :c}
a further
I agree there are going to be problems with implementation as-well .. for
example if not all the keys in the current map are not in the kmap ... but
situation can be handled however, if we passed a function this is going to
be harder .. ..
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Sunil S Nandihalli
