On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>
> I'd appreciate it if someone
> could look it over and let me know if I've done anything that isn't
> very idiomatic.
>
> A few recommendations just at the "look and feel" level:
> - u
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:05 PM, ataggart wrote:
>
> A set might be better to hold the player-refs, then you can just call
> (disj player-refs player-ref) without doing any extra checking.
Thanks, I llke that much better!
> Also you can access ref values without needing to be in a dosync.
> Thing
I should have been more clear when I said to use (disj ...); I meant
sending that via an alter.
On Jul 5, 6:05 pm, ataggart wrote:
> A set might be better to hold the player-refs, then you can just call
> (disj player-refs player-ref) without doing any extra checking.
>
> Also you can access ref
On Jul 5, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Mark Volkmann wrote:
I'd appreciate it if someone
could look it over and let me know if I've done anything that isn't
very idiomatic.
A few recommendations just at the "look and feel" level:
- use doc strings for functions in place of comments
- global delete of
A set might be better to hold the player-refs, then you can just call
(disj player-refs player-ref) without doing any extra checking.
Also you can access ref values without needing to be in a dosync.
Things being immutable, the value you get from, say, @team-ref won't
change once you have it.
On
