On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Jim Crossley <j...@crossleys.org> wrote: > It's not obvious to me why the "bad" release-sharks example on the coding > standards page [1] is bad. Why should the optional config be the "least > variance argument"? > > I had to look up "laudable", btw. It's one of those good words that sounds > bad. :) > > [1] http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Library+Coding+Standards
Well, that's a very recent change. Stuart Halloway's version has been the standard for years. Reid made those changes only a few days ago - and I saw no discussion of the proposed changes so I'd like to hear from Cognitect's folks about this: is it a change of heart by Clojure/core or are they unaware of the change? Sean Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "Perfection is the enemy of the good." -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
