Jim <jimpil1...@gmail.com> writes: > On 16/05/13 13:56, AtKaaZ wrote: >> In a way I'm in his shoes, but I always assumed that the user would use >> binding even if that meant encompassing the whole program in it. > > personally, I find it rather unpleasant to depend on a lib that forces me to > use 'binding' in such a top-level fashion...Clojure does this internally to > provide convenience knobs for certain static resources (e.g. *in* & *out*) and > for vars that don't really get involved in your business logic (e.g. > *warn-on-reflection* & *unhecked-math*)
And having established a clear use case, which appears well motivated and sensible, Clojure prevents me from providing the same convenience knobs for my own library; at least in the same way. Okay, so I can use atoms. My question, why does clojure.core not? > > that said, I think the OP is not looking for state but for polymorphic > behavior...hence, my previous suggestion. > Pretty much. Or what you might call "slow" state. The user might want to switch between the defaults, but the code itself never will. Phil -- -- 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.
