Hahaha, thanks Philip. Does it really take a doctorate to understand classification of elephants?
I think the overall consensus is that having basic type checking is good... but over doing types is bad. Would this be a reasonable guideline for using types? 1. Types are useful for structures that HOLD data (ints, strings, maps, arrays… ) because they provide ways defining standard operations to manipulate data that make sense in the context of that type of data. It is helpful to have a type checker check that I am not accessing the 6th element of a hashmap or that I am adding 10 to "Hello". 2. When a particular data-structure is sufficient for holding information, then its better to just use the data-structure because we have so many generic operations predefined. > For example, if I have to model customers in a line. I wouldn't have type CUSTOMER and type LINE. I would just represent this as a QUEUE of MAPS…. ---- However… I find that I am writing a lot of statements like this: (cond (hash-map? v) …… (vector? v) …… (list? v) ….. :else …..) I'm not sure a type checker will help in that instance. -- -- 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.