On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:11:23 AM UTC-4, Steven Degutis wrote: > Jay, > > [elided] > That's the issue I'm trying to solve. Maybe that's not what everyone sees > in this. But this is the big win I see in it. >
I think that's a good goal, I think you should stick to that, instead of continuing to make incorrect statements about the existing libraries. So far you've called my framework 'inflexible' and claimed that 'around' isn't possible. Both statements are (a) incorrect and (b) not relevant. I have an issue with that, and will continue to keep responding as long as you keep making inaccurate statements. Cheers, Jay -- -- 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.
