On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > I think this is one of the misunderstandings or points of disagreements (or > whatever you want to name it) in this whole discussion: this code is *not* > broken.
Code that runs on 1.2 but throws an exception on 1.3 is "broken" on 1.3 by definition. The fact that it can be easily "unbroken" is good to know but it still means working code can stop working if you move from Clojure 1.2 to 1.3. That's what I mean by 1.3 "breaks" code. Some people are more upset by this than others (I'm not upset by it at all, just for the record - I think the decision is the right one for the future of Clojure). Besides, after what I (and many others) experienced in the Scala 2.7 / 2.8 upgrade, the incompatibilities between Clojure 1.2 and 1.3 are positively minor by comparison :) -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.getrailo.com/ "Perfection is the enemy of the good." -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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
