On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, 29. April 2011 08:43:10 UTC+2 schrieb Ken Wesson: >> >> Yeah, that works if you have the object in hand and it's not wrapped >> or anything. Of course it has the same problem: which component are >> you interested in? I guess in this case you might strip everything >> before the last $, and anything starting with __ at the end, to get a >> more meaningful name, though you'll sometimes get "fn" that way. > > This is not a problem. What is meaningful depends on the application. So the > name should provide the full path to the function. Then one can distinguish > each function. Anonymous functions don't have a name - obviously - but a > number. A function nameing scheme cannot assume that only the part after the > last $ without __ddd is meaningful if it tries to be applicable in general. > This is basically the old "stacktrace" problem: a library cannot assume what > of a stracktrace is of interest, because it is application dependent.
In that case, you supply functions to extract various portions and leave their use up to the user. -- 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
