On Mar 20, 2010, at 2:50 PM, cageface wrote:
So will deftype/protocol be the recommended, idiomatic way to
implement ADTs in Clojure 1.2?
Yes.
Will the current map/struct based
approaches essentially be deprecated?
These are two different things. deftypes will work fine with map-based
So will deftype/protocol be the recommended, idiomatic way to
implement ADTs in Clojure 1.2? Will the current map/struct based
approaches essentially be deprecated?
The doc here http://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/clojure/Datatypes
suggested to me that they were more for interfacing with Java in a
m
This will change in Clojure 1.2, with defstruct superseded by deftype,
and with capitalization for defprotocols and deftypes. You might want
to compare this Clojure example:
http://github.com/relevance/labrepl/blob/master/src/solutions/rock_paper_scissors.clj
to the OO solutions at
http://w
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:03 AM, strattonbrazil
wrote:
> Well, even in this case how do lisp programmers typically name their
> structs vs their variables? In java I could make an "Employee" class
> and then an "employee" object and it was easy to distinguish between
> the two. If it's not kosh
Well, even in this case how do lisp programmers typically name their
structs vs their variables? In java I could make an "Employee" class
and then an "employee" object and it was easy to distinguish between
the two. If it's not kosher to uppercase a struct, what's the
convention for something lik
As the doc for 'accessor notes, you should really eschew this stuff
altogether, and be more idiomatic by just using the keyword. If you
absolutely know that you need that "(slightly) more efficient" access,
then naming the struct with an uppercase first letter works, and isn't
too uncommon; beside
