spooky action at a distance - back to OO again!
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:21:45 PM UTC, William la Forge wrote:
>
> As in quantum entanglement? :-)
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojur
As in quantum entanglement? :-)
--
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
Maybe a better word for complecting is "entangling".
Saludos,
Nahuel Greco.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Colin Yates wrote:
> > (Clojure's vocabulary is not to be questioned...why say "conflate" or
> "confuse" when you can say "complect" to reinforce in-group membership ?)
> /rant
>
> THANK
>> But, if someone has to explain the etymology of their word to you for it
to make >> sense, then the word has failed.
If I took that approach with my kids, they'd never get out of first-grade.
Timothy
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Bobby Bobble wrote:
> "Careful - ‘complect’ has a very spe
"Careful - ‘complect’ has a very specific meaning"
OK something to do with braiding, yes.
But, if someone has to explain the etymology of their word to you for it to
make sense, then the word has failed.
If you mean "braided" say "braided", or better still "tangled"! I mean,
"braided" or "p
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:19:41 AM UTC, Colin Yates wrote:
>
> > (Clojure's vocabulary is not to be questioned...why say "conflate" or
> "confuse" when you can say "complect" to reinforce in-group membership ?)
> /rant
>
> THANK YOU! I can't count the number of times I've had to restr
> > (Clojure's vocabulary is not to be questioned...why say "conflate" or
> > "confuse" when you can say "complect" to reinforce in-group membership ?)
> > /rant
>
> THANK YOU! I can't count the number of times I've had to restrain myself
> from an apoplectic rant about this hideous non-word.
On Nov 23, 2015 4:23 PM, "Gregg Reynolds" wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2015 6:34 AM, "Bobby Bobble" wrote:
> >
> > functions. E.g. it's as nullary fns.
Sorry, "ints", not "it's ". How I hate spell-checkers!!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" gr
On Nov 23, 2015 6:34 AM, "Bobby Bobble" wrote:
>
> let's not forget that Clojure's datastructures are objects. They respond
to messages like seq, first, rest etc (which requires a bit more complexity
than what Clojurians hail as "just data", which would be like
1010101101010100011011..
let's not forget that Clojure's datastructures are objects. They respond to
messages like seq, first, rest etc (which requires a bit more complexity
than what Clojurians hail as "just data", which would be like
1010101101010100011011...what Clojurians really mean by that
term is som
Hi James!
I'll be the first to admit that I do not yet have a strong case here. And
yeah, it looks like I'm introducing some boilerplate myself to do things
this way. Which probably just means that I need to learn how to write
macros or some such. :-)
I was just saying that the calf and yearli
On 21 November 2015 at 04:50, William la Forge wrote:
>
> The reason for having this "type of object" at all is that I was going to
> have 3 copies of the same code. Which I find to be a bad thing.
>
Could you explain why you were going to have duplicate code, and how your
object system solved th
Timothy,
I've been thinking about this a bit more and I see that you can supply data
via a function in a function map that is part of extend. And while self
reference between the various parts of a composite can get awkward, you can
always revert to a function to complete that self-reference th
The advantage of maps over records is if I have 3 objects as maps I can
easily munge them into a single map. But if I have 3 objects as records, I
loose that option. OK, I can nest records inside each other but it is not
the same. With objects as maps I've got something closer to mixins. But not
ty
You might want to read up on records and protocols in clojure. This is
pretty much the use case for which they were designed.
Timothy
On Friday, November 20, 2015, William la Forge wrote:
> You can tell I'm still new to clojure. The composition should have been
> written like this:
>
> (-> opts
You can tell I'm still new to clojure. The composition should have been
written like this:
(-> opts (db-file-open) (db-cache-start) etc)
--
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
No
James,
The advantages of one style over another are often subtle. And indeed, a
single object written this way has no real advantage. Poor choice, but it
was the only code I have written in this way so far. The addition of
closures only occurred to me while writing this piece of code.
I includ
What's the benefit to writing code like this?
The only thing I could possibly see as being considered an advantage is
that it encapsulates the file channel, but you've exposed that via a key
anyway.
- James
On 21 November 2015 at 02:54, William la Forge wrote:
> Code as data is the mantra. Fun
Oh! Some minor edits. Which can be found
here: https://github.com/laforge49/aatree/wiki/Clojure-Objects
--
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
