On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 21.02.2012 um 22:35 schrieb Aaron Cohen:
>
>> I'd actuallly tried to avoid littering the syntax tree with :constants
>> elements anywhere other than where they were needed, but thinking
>> about it, there doesn't really seem to be any reason to do that, and
>> it does make the implementation much simpler.
>
> I thought of it as each form carrying the interesting information about eg.
> the contained constants with itself. I understand your idea of keeping things
> clean. But then there is meta data and maybe this is a very valid use of it.
> In fact this information *is* metadata about the form.
>
One complication I'm not sure about is nested fns.
I'm typing the following in my email client, so forgive any typos...
For instance: {:op :fn, :children [{:op fn, :children [{:op :constant,
:form 1}]}, {:op :constant, :form 2}]}
Does your solution result in the top level getting both constants?
Unfortunately, my specification didn't mention that, but each fn acts
as a level of scope for the constants, they shouldn't dribble out to
the top.
--
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
