INCLUDE the keys specified in the #:include list. change that with the #:action-order parameter. NOTE: These are listed in the default action order, but you can The return value is guaranteed to be of the same type (mutable / remove keys, overwrite the value of keys, add new keys, ensure This will munge hashes any way you like. include -> remove -> overwrite -> add -> rename -> default Mnemonic for default order of application: I ROARenD #:value-is-default? any/c (-> any/c boolean) or converts to (#:action-order (listof (or/c 'remove 'overwrite 'add 'rename Oh, that reminds me: Here's the docco for hash-remap in case you want it.Īgain, I'll scribblify this when I have the tuits. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Packages until handy is more stable, be a quick route to betterĭocumentation, and probably cause the least disruption to existing struct++ Handy that it uses into private submodules, remove handy as a dependency,Īnd flesh out struct++’s own docs to more fully cover the keyword argumentsĪccepted by the convert-for converters. Suggestion: it might make more sense to have struct++ “inline” the parts of Suspect this will not happen soon? In the absence of that, I have an idle Ideally, as a dependency of struct++, handy would be in a long-term stableĬondition with a full set of docs. Reluctant to depend on the parts of struct++ that appear mostly to depend This would decouple the two packages until handy is more stable, be a quick route to better documentation, and probably cause the least disruption to existing struct++ code. However, life being what it is, I suspect this will not happen soon? In the absence of that, I have an idle suggestion: it might make more sense to have struct++ “inline” the parts of handy that it uses into private submodules, remove handy as a dependency, and flesh out struct++’s own docs to more fully cover the keyword arguments accepted by the convert-for converters. Ideally, as a dependency of struct++, handy would be in a long-term stable condition with a full set of docs. The gap in the documentation and the perceived instability make me reluctant to depend on the parts of struct++ that appear mostly to depend on handy. I read elsewhere that you believe that package needs to be broken up, meaning that handy is probably not stable. The docs for the convert-for functionality say “See the handy/hash docs for details” but these docs do not exist (indeed there is a broken link to them in the preceding sentence). Now when we use the variable (dependency), we use the object that we were given rather than the one we created.You took some time to talk to me at BR/RacketCon about struct++, and I’m just starting a branch for replacing some very gnarly code with better stuff using this library! It is going very well so far except for this detail. That would “inject” the “dependency” into the class. If we wanted to, we could pass the variable into the constructor. The Slightly Longer Version, Part II: Dependency Injection named “myDatabase.” We initialize it in the constructor. Let’s call those “dependencies.” Most people call them “variables.” Sometimes, when they’re feeling fancy, they call them “instance variables.” The Slightly Longer Version, Part I: Dependency Non-InjectionĬlasses have these things they call methods on. The Really Short Versionĭependency injection means giving an object its instance variables. I figured I should say something, well, simpler. But the top articles on Google focus on bells and whistles at the expense of the basic concept. “Dependency Injection” is a 25-dollar term for a 5-cent concept. When I finally took the time to figure out what people were talking about, I laughed. When I first heard about dependency injection, I thought, “Dependendiwhatsit?” and promptly forgot about it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |