Funny question, how do you cover for "get" word being a function name, say you have namespace 'computer, surely it would be intuitive to have "get" function obtaining "computer". Just wondering how do you overcome this linguitically π or do you just place get at the bottom
You are allowed to have a function named get - you just need to put (:refer-clojure :exclude [get])
in your namespace declaration to avoid warnings.
And then you refer to the core get
as clojure.core/get
within that file.
so
ns some.computer
(:refer-clojure :exclude [get]))
(
defn get [o]
(:thing)) (clojure.core/get o
or
ns some.computer
(:require [clojure.core :as core])
(:refer-clojure :exclude [get]))
(
defn get [o]
(:thing)) (core/get o
sure, sure its not a technical question more of, do you use a different function name, or do you choose another word etc.
I do this with update
in some contexts.
No I just use get if I want to - but you have to be more specific about the use case for me to give a better name.
You can usually call it get-thing
or thing
If you mention both get and update in this case I will assume this is ok practice
its fine, depends on your domain
sure, sure, thanks π
I could also
get*
or something like that for, "c/grud" stuff,get*, update*, delete*, create*
seems, ok I think
if the intended usage of the namespace is :require [a.b.thing :as thing], thing/func
and the ns is small and focused (enough that you wont forget you shadowed a core fn) then donβt worry about it
thanks, going the get* route, this less bother down the road i think