My point is simply that whether something is immutable or not has nothing to do with how that data structure is being used in the program. Naming conventions signify usage. You could write a pure Java program and make it pretty darn functional. You would still want to mark values that are logically treated as constants as such. And I don't things are not so different in Clojure. In many programs you will create structures for the intention of changing them. This is I think Rich's point about separating state and identity. Yes data structures are immutable, but vars help the programmer wrap their head around the identities.
vars in Clojure are a tool for reasoning about a program that uses immutable data structures. And using a naming convention for vars that represent constants is yet another tool for reasoning about the program. On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Phil Hagelberg <p...@hagelb.org> wrote: > > David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> writes: > > > The fact that the Clojure data structures are immutable and that some > > of those data structures might be used logically constants are two > > separate concerns. > > I don't understand what this means. What's the difference between using > a value that doesn't change and using a value as a logical constant? Are > you talking about changing the value of a var by calling "def" on it > again instead of using "binding"? > > -Phil > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
