gered/clj-jtwig
Archived
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

to be consistent, we should be converting keys this way here too

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Gered 2014-03-02 10:21:11 -05:00
parent ce93336731
commit f2a864b2e1
1 changed files with 6 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
src/clj_jtwig/convert.clj
View file

@ -15,9 +15,7 @@
(.entrySet) (.entrySet)
(reduce (reduce
(fn [m [k v]] (fn [m [k v]]
; TODO: perhaps we should be doing (keyword k) instead? i don't like that it technically is not an (assoc m (to-clojure k) (to-clojure v)))
; exact conversion if we do it that way though, even if it is more idiomatic for clojure ...
(assoc m k (to-clojure v)))
{}))) {})))
java.lang.Number java.lang.Number
@ -36,6 +34,10 @@
(to-clojure [x] (to-clojure [x]
x) x)
clojure.lang.Keyword
(to-clojure [x]
x)
java.lang.Object java.lang.Object
(to-clojure [x] (to-clojure [x]
(-> x (-> x
@ -80,4 +82,4 @@
(defn clojure->java (defn clojure->java
"converts a clojure value to an equivalent value using a java object" "converts a clojure value to an equivalent value using a java object"
[x] [x]
(to-java x)) (to-java x))