On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Rich Hickey<richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 25, 3:20 pm, Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Should I use this mailing list to suggest changes to the Clojure >> implementation or some other avenue? >> >> Some suggestions I may have are pretty simple. >> For example, in LockingTransaction.java I see: >> >> ref.validate(ref.getValidator(), e.getValue()); >> >> That could be replaced by: >> >> ref.validate(e.getValue()); >> >> because the validate method in ARef.java is overloaded and the version >> that just takes the proposed new value uses the same validator >> function returned by ref.getValidator(). >> > > Unless it substantially improves something, I think any such changes > are just a distraction.
Certainly this example doesn't substantially improve anything. It does make the code look a small bit cleaner though. Making the code easier to read/understand (more than my simple suggestion) can increase the number of people that take the time to read it and that could result in more significant suggestions. It's your call though whether you want to act on the suggestions. Suppose though that I come up with a significant suggestion. What avenue should I use to share it? -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
