On 22.01.2009, at 15:26, Rich Hickey wrote: > It's pretty easy to write a trivial struct system, much harder to > address performance, interop, compilability, dynamicity etc > constraints.
Indeed. > As a simple case, if a defstruct is re-evaluated, will objects created > after that be of the same 'type' as objects created before? I'd say no, which resolves the next question: > What if fields have been added/removed? Anyway, I don't think that re-evaluation is a serious issue, except in interactive development sessions. The typical use would be defining a struct once and then not touch it any more. > I'd prefer people experiment with libraries built on the existing > facilities, with an open mind as to the possibilities of categorizing > things other than by their structure. The added flexibility of multimethods is quite appreciable in non- trivial situations. But at the moment there is no simple way to handle simple situations. Using structs is straightforward and familiar from other languages. It is certainly not *the* solution to categorizing, but it's a simple one that is good enough for many applications. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
