On 05/09/12 00:53, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
of course not...this also goes against set/map semantics from a
mathematics point of view...the mathematical guarantees of set
('there will be no duplicates') are imposed by the set itself and not
by the person/program/whatever using it! the same with map... since
the ctor fns are considered the correct way of initialising sets/maps
then I assume the dev team agrees with this simply because these
versions do behave like true sets and impose the guarantees
themselves. why not the literals?
in other words:
how useful are sets that cannot impose the guarantees of set? if you,
the programmer, has to know there are no duplicates, why not use a
vector? no, you want that feeling of security that *there will be no
duplicates* no matter what! and obviously a RTE is scary and doesn't
really give you that feeling of security does it? people use literals
all over the place (including me)...
Jim
--
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
