>> Should be expressed as: >> (swap! :atom a, :function inc) One of Rich's talks on simplicity actually addresses that. He states that the above method (with keyword arguments) is actually simpler, but that this isn't exactly easy to program.
And yes, I would take this same position about positional vectors being a type instead of a list or persistent vector. Same thing with Ratios we could represent them as [numerator denominator] but we don't as its simpler to give them their own type, and then I can easily determine if a [11 22] is a ratio, a 2D point or even a variant. Types are good even in dynamic languages, we should use the more. As mentioned by Thomas, records are the idiomatic way to store typed information in Clojure. They're simple, elegant, and interop very cleanly with the rest of the system. So that's why I react when someone takes a conference talk as an example of "the way it should be done". The above video is a exploratory explanation of a different way of thinking of data, but I have never seen code like that in production, and it's so different from idiomatic Clojure, that I would be hesitant to adopt it wholesale. Timothy -- 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/d/optout.
