Why not have two behaviours from the same code base ? There could be a "strict" mode versus an optimized mode. That could allow more optimizations at run time while having a clear trace in the code of these optimizations. The strict mode would be slower but that should be fine when testing.
Going back to the age of lint does not look to me a progress, more like a regression... Luc On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 11:53 -0400, Stephen C. Gilardi wrote: > On Mar 19, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Michael Wood wrote: > > > Fair enough, but why does the (defn) succeed if these symbols are > > reserved? > > Clojure does not always enforce all the rules. It may come to pass > that Clojure will never enforce all the rules as the performance cost > and complexity added by doing so may outweigh the potential benefits. > > This is something that tools can help with. One could write a program > to do more detailed checking and notification of rule violations while > still keeping Clojure proper tuned for executing correct programs well > and quickly. > > --Steve > Luc Préfontaine Armageddon was yesterday, today we have a real problem... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
