Yes! This is very much what I'm talking about. When we talk about why we don't need classes in Clojure, we're usually talking about how we have better tools for inheritance, polymorphism, encpasulation, mutable state, etc. But classes are also powerful namespaces, and Clojure's namespaces aren't rich enough to make me stop missing those sorts of useful aspects of classes. Spiewak gives some really great examples in his talk. Thanks for the link.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Robert Levy <r.p.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mark, > > Your comment "Clojure's namespaces are quite limited in ways that > frequently cause me pain" brings to mind Daniel Spiewak's talk on > modularity in functional languages: http://2013.flatmap.no/spiewak.html. > It might be interesting to Massimiliano as well. > > -- -- 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.
