On Aug 1, 12:45 pm, Arthur Edelstein <arthuredelst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wasn't Rich trying to come up with a solution which could be retrofitted > > into Clojure ? > > I was trying to see how to avoid having to change anything in Clojure > proper. In the strategy I'm humbly suggesting, the syntax from Clojure > could work as-is. Just use same the dot notation (as in Clojure, for > executing methods and getting the value of non-function fields), and > if you need a member function as a function object (in ClojureScript) > just access it as you would a member of an IMap, using (:methodName > target) or (get target :methodName).
Sorry, not an IMap, an ILookup. -- 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
