On 27 December 2013 18:08, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Stuart Halloway < > stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, thanks Mark. It seems to me that you are saying "namespaces make >> poor maps". Stipulated. So why not use records or maps? >> > > This is close, but not exactly what I'm saying. It's not so much about > wanting namespaces to be maps. It's about wanting a robust mechanism for > functions to share information other than threading that information > through the functions. > > In Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programming, a large chunk of > the programs are written in a pseudo-object-oriented style, a style which > simulates objects by having functions' closures share the same local > context. >
What sort of local context did you imagine sharing? I can't think of any instance where I've needed to share the *same* context between functions. I find that internal functions will typically end up with a small subset of the configuration passed to a top-level component. It's also fairly rare that I find any configuration placed in var, as generally the configuration I deal with are specific to a particular deployment, such as database URLs, API keys and the like. - 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.
