On Apr 20, 2009, at 18:13, Timo Mihaljov wrote: > To put it another way, any answer involving custom support code (new > macros or the like) is not the one I'm looking for. Being able to > modify > the language is very cool, but not being able to solve a simple > problem
Macros are not "modifying the language", they are an essential aspect of any language of the Lisp family. > with a language that thousands of people use all the time suggests > to me > that I'm trying to solve a problem that everyone else sidesteps > altogether. Or perhaps a problem that doesn't happen in real life with Clojure, for whatever reason, including that the language is perhaps too new. However, my feeling is that your problem is too hypothetical to have an obvious solution. You state your problem in terms suitable for an OO language, but Clojure is not really an OO language, even though it shares some aspects of OO languages. Clojure adopts a mostly functional point of view to programming, so if you want to discuss idiomatic Clojure, you should describe your hypothetical application in terms of functional abstractions and associated data structures, and then describe what problem you ran into. An essential question would then be how access to the "name" field of the data structure happens in the framework of your functional abstractions, and why exactly it needs to be modified to suit a change in requirements. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
