2009/2/22 Chouser
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM, David Nolen
> wrote:
> > My point is simply that whether something is immutable or not has nothing
> to
> > do with how that data structure is being used in the program.
> > Naming conventions signify usage. You could write a pure Java
> >
We chose to keep a naming convention for constants mainly because we are
mixing Java, Ruby
and Clojure in the same system. We have to replicate constants between
the different languages.
We needed a common anchor somehow to keep track of things and be able to
track down
changes.
We typically use u
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 9:05 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> Thanks for the points.
> What I was thinking, was that for things like π, in Clojure (as in CL),
> perhaps it makes to sense to mark it like so:
> +pi+
Is 'pi' more constant than, say, 'rem'? One implements IFn, the other
doesn't, but neithe
Thanks for the points.
What I was thinking, was that for things like π, in Clojure (as in CL),
perhaps it makes to sense to mark it like so:
+pi+
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Chouser wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM, David Nolen
> wrote:
> > My point is simply that whether someth
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> My point is simply that whether something is immutable or not has nothing to
> do with how that data structure is being used in the program.
> Naming conventions signify usage. You could write a pure Java
> program and make it pretty darn fun
My point is simply that whether something is immutable or not has nothing to
do with how that data structure is being used in the program. Naming
conventions signify usage. You could write a pure Java program and make it
pretty darn functional. You would still want to mark values that are
logical
David Nolen writes:
> The fact that the Clojure data structures are immutable and that some
> of those data structures might be used logically constants are two
> separate concerns.
I don't understand what this means. What's the difference between using
a value that doesn't change and using a v
The fact that the Clojure data structures are immutable and that some of
those data structures might be used logically constants are two separate
concerns. When reading Clojure code, we've already internalized the fact
that the data structures are immutable. Using a naming convention for a
consta
Mark Volkmann writes:
> As best I can tell Clojure doesn't have a convention for constant names.
Everything that's not expected to be rebound at runtime
(*special-variables*) is by definition a constant (with the exception of
refs, agents, and atoms). You don't need a special "constant naming
c
+name+ is also in line with Common Lisp patterns
http://www.cliki.net/Naming%20conventions
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Luc Prefontaine <
lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca> wrote:
> In our software, we use uppercase or +name+ as constant names.
> Both Java and RUBY use uppercase, I think it's more
In our software, we use uppercase or +name+ as constant names.
Both Java and RUBY use uppercase, I think it's more a matter of taste
what you decide to use.
Ideally it should be obvious by looking at the name that some name is a
constant name.
Both of the above satisfy this criteria.
Luc
On Sat,
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>
> I'm kind of used to Java nowadays, where CONSTANTS_ARE_UPPERCASE. I'm
> trying to figure out if Clojure has equivalent conventions.
>
> What I've seen:
>
> names-with-dashes instead of CamelCase
Right.
> *global* for global variable
I'm kind of used to Java nowadays, where CONSTANTS_ARE_UPPERCASE. I'm
trying to figure out if Clojure has equivalent conventions.
What I've seen:
names-with-dashes instead of CamelCase
*global* for global variables (?)
Parameter name conventions (from Stu's book): val, coll, a, etc.
What are t
13 matches
Mail list logo
