Warren Lynn <wrn.l...@gmail.com> writes: > If you say constructor is bad because it is not flexible, where "bad" > means we should not do it at all, then what makes you think one-level > factory function "good"? Isn't two-level factory function even more > flexible? Then isn't three-level factory even more flexible? So we > should *always* use N-level factory functions until we run out stack > because that gives us the maximum flexibility? I am challenging this > line of logic. I hope the point is clearer now.
You are challenging a line of logic that only exists as a strawman, an expansion to the absurd -- changing the argument from one of sufficient flexibility to one of abstractly greater, and therefor cumulative, flexibility. -- Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> Premature reification is the root of all evil -- 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
