Mark Volkmann a écrit : > What are some benefits of allowing two ways of doing the following? > > There are two ways to access constants in a Java class. > (. java.util.Calendar APRIL) > java.util.Calendar/APRIL > > There are two ways invoke a static method in a Java class. > (. Math pow 2 4) > (Math/pow 2 4) > > There are two ways to invoke a constructor to create a Java object. > (def calendar (new GregorianCalendar 2008 3 16)) > (def calendar (GregorianCalendar. 2008 3 16)) > > There are two ways invoke an instance method on a Java object. > (. calendar add Calendar/MONTH 2) > (.add calendar Calendar/MONTH 2) > > It seems that in each case the second way is preferred. Why not get > rid of the first way? > The first way makes macros easier to write.
eg: `(new ~a-class) instead of (list (symbol (str (name a-class) \.))) The second way is just "syntax" sugar: user=> (macroexpand-1 '(Foo.)) (new Foo) Christophe --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
