Hi Kovas, I considered the problem of what to do with undefined tags when I implemented this, but I didn't have a clear idea of what the result type should be, so I ignored it.
I also didn't know what to do with the metadata. For example, on the JVM, you can't put metadata on Java types like String or Date. If there's metadata on the tagged type, do you try to preserve it? For that matter, what does the reader do now if you try to put metadata on a tagged literal that evaluates to a type which doesn't accept metadata? I assume the reader blows up there too. Other similar tagging systems allow undefined tags to be passed through, and I think this is the right approach. You can represent any tagged literal as a <symbol, data> pair, and this pair deserves its own type. I'd call it TaggedData. It should implement the interface that handles metadata (IObj in Clojure on the JVM I think). I like the idea of being able to define how tagged literals should be emitted without mucking about with strings. At first glance, your approach seems reasonable. Are you on Clojure/dev? To move this forward, you can put a design proposal on dev.clojure.org. Keep in mind that tagged literals went through months of discussion before the implementation: http://dev.clojure.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=950382 -S -- 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 this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
