Hacker News Reader

Comment by rapala | Hacker News Reader

I find it odd that he is using the new macro to create the record instances. I thought that it is meant to be used only in Java inter-op, as it requires that the class of the record is visible in the current namespace.

View on HN

I don't get what you mean. I like the way new looks as compared to the Record. syntax, but either way you need the java class visible in the current namespace:

    sjl at grendel in ~/s/caves
    ><((°> lein2 repl
    caves.core=> (use 'caves.world)
    nil
    caves.core=> (new World [:foo])
    CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Unable to resolve classname: World, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1)
    
    caves.core=> (import '[caves.world World])
    caves.world.World
    caves.core=> (new World [:foo])
    #caves.world.World{:tiles [:foo]}
    caves.core=> Bye for now!
    
    
    sjl at grendel in ~/s/caves
    ><((°> lein2 repl
    caves.core=> (use 'caves.world)
    nil
    caves.core=> (World. [:foo])
    CompilerException java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Unable to resolve classname: World, compiling:(NO_SOURCE_PATH:1)
    
    caves.core=>

Is there another way to create record instances that doesn't involve that warty (import) call that I'm not aware of?

As of Clojure 1.3, defrecord (and deftype) automatically define factory functions in the same namespace as the record itself. defrecord generates 2 such functions, one that takes positional arguments and one that takes a map. So once you have :use'd or :require'd the namespace, you can do stuff like the following without having to import anymore:

    (->World [:foo])
    (->World {:tiles [:foo]})

More details here:

http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/defrecord+improvements

Oh cool, I didn't know that. I kind of blocked 1.3 out of my memory after the "let's remove clojure.contrib and break everyone's shit" mess.

It's good to know that progress toward patching all the places Java tends to leak through into Clojure is happening.

I can't say I'm a fan of the punctuation-laden syntax, but I'll pick my battles and not complain about it.

I'll switch over to this new form tonight and mention it in one of the later posts. Thanks!

This, and before 1.3 you were supposed to define a constructor function yourself. I'm pretty sure that was somewhere in the documentation. Or in the clojure.org/datatypes. Or in some mailing list post that I red. The Clojure documentation is a mess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com