On Sunday, August 5, 2012 5:56:30 AM UTC-4, Vinzent wrote: > > +1 for Warren's proposal. I thought about the same thing earlier, but > haven't shared it with community because I believed it'd be rejected. > > Though, I don't see how OOP relates to the topic of this discussion. > Records are not objects; they are rather typed maps. Everyone writes that > "constructor" (or "factory") functions. It's perfectly legal and there is > nothing shameful (e.g. OO-like) in it. > > As in my last reply, my terminology use is not good. Sorry for that.
> In my mind, the problem is that Sean says that it's standard practice to > create "make-Foo" function, while tbc++ believes it's idiomatic to name it > "foo". In other words, we have a very common and basic pattern, but it's > not covered by an appropriate abstraction. The result of that is > unnecessary and meaningless complication of reading code. Compare it with > Java: constructor (and the factory pattern too, but to a lesser extent > because of limitations of the language) is a standard, built-in construct; > the reader knows where to look at to learn how a class instantiates. > > On the other hand, it looks like many clojure folks prefer to use plain > maps where records could be used because of countless limitations and warts > of the latter, which makes the proposed change less useful than it could be. > I agree right now record is kind of crude, so consider this proposal one effort to help. Otherwise we will be stuck in the cycle of "no value, no improvement, and hence no value". -- 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
