Hi,
This is probably digressing a little from the original question but I
was wondering if using namespaces here is a reasonable thing to do
when designing ADTs.
> SICP tells us that we should be defining accessor functions
> immediately when we create a new data type.
>
> (defn make-fraction [n d] {:numerator n :denominator d})
> (defn fraction-numerator [f] (:numerator f))
> (defn fraction-denominator [f] (:denominator f))
Couldn't you define the functions like so:
(ns fraction)
(defn make [n d] {:numerator n :denominator d})
(defn numerator [f] (:numerator f))
(defn denominator [f] (:denominator f))
And then from outside the namespace call
(def f (fraction/make 1 2))
(fraction/numerator f) ; => 1
This seems to me to be a fairly clean way to encapsulate an ADT and it
doesn't cost any more characters than the prefix style of naming
functions.
Regards,
Mark.
--
http://mark.reid.name
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
