Um, this is all going down a path that I don't propose to follow. I am manifestly aware that there are loads of alternatives already in Clojure (and Java, for that matter), and many reasons both theoretical and practical for doing or not doing all manner of things. But, a couple of remarks:
@Alan: Mostly I agree, but I think you're busily belaboring a strawman here---you're reading way more into my idiot Java-analogy than is actually there. I do need be clear on one point, however: I am not asking, suggesting, promoting, recommending, or otherwise requesting in any way, shape, or form, that any of the sort of stuff you're describing to be implemented in Clojure... and what I do in the confines of my implementations is my business. @Meikel: been there, done that, and it *is* clumsy... and that's exactly the point I arrived at. The more little pieces involved in defining a data type, the worse off for the implementer. For that matter, even the requirement that one has to specify a protocol and then a record is a tedious exercise if there's never going to be more than a single implementation. But, so what? Heh... it's so nice to be able to say that! And I can say that because Clojure provides me with a marvelous arsenal of weapons for dealing with this kind of issue. As I have done, to my considerable satisfaction. My solution just happened to have evolved in a particular direction that didn't involve extend-type; in another incarnation, maybe it will. Bottom line is that I have a mechanism long since implemented that solves my particular set of problems in my particular environment. I have no intentions of altering it if I can avoid doing so, and even fewer intentions of foisting it on the rest of the world. Clojure 1.3 broke it by altering the behavior of a special case of a low-level functionality---something I'd view as a basic building block. Question is, is it likely to be repaired, and if so, in what sort of timeframe? Or do I need to change my stuff? I'm good with the decision, either way... though I surely have preferences as to who I'd like to have doing the work... :-) 'Nuff said... -- Howard -- 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
