On 9 May 2013 18:03, Colin Yates <colin.ya...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am nervous as well about "expose internals but trust people to do the > right thing" because in this case, if I was a consumer and saw that queue, > particularly given the emphasis about data being the contract etc. then why > would I think *not* to use it. >
If this were a problem in general I think we'd find more people poking at the internals of protocols, but I've never seen that happen. You could use namespaced keywords, like :woobly.internal/queue, to give people more of a hint that the data shouldn't be used without the API, but I really think you're borrowing trouble with this. Encapsulation is like inheritance, in that it's one of those ideas that's nice on paper, but ultimately not very useful in practise. - James -- -- 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.
