2013/3/25 Jim foo.bar <jimpil1...@gmail.com> > I've never seen that in Clojure code but is 'how responsible a programmer > is' what really matters? In other words, are clojure's collection > persistent by covention (up to the programmer)? I'd argue that when you > call a collection 'persistent' what matters is 'persistence' and not > 'persistent usage'.
They are persistent as long as you use the public API. Not all public methods on implementation classes are part of the public API. It would be nice if clojure.lang.* methods had it reflected in the docs, but we have what we have. I can't know for sure but assume that clojure.lang.* classes were not meant to be used directly or from Java, unless absolutely necessary. There is no absolute immutability on the JVM, .NET, in JavaScript. There is always a backdoor to mutability. But 99.9% of projects won't use it. If you think that this is scary, dig deeper and you will find plenty of libraries that use native dependencies. With those, you are basically one issue away from having your entire VM terminate. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it? -- MK http://github.com/michaelklishin http://twitter.com/michaelklishin -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
