Amusingly, ClojureScript's "case" works more like the way I always expect "case" to work. A "case" in Clojure that did what I meant with Java public-static-final constants would be lovely, lovely. ClojureScript's "case" is tasty candy!
And now with cljc, those tasty "case" forms are going to migrate to Clojure and they are very quietly going to do something completely different. That would be a bad thing and its taxonomic order would be "incidental complexity". Maybe ClojureScript's super-charged "case" could move over to "case*"? At any rate, I would like to put in either a documentation issue (if it's a feature that ClojureScript's "case" does not work like Clojure's) or else a defect issue (if it's a bug). In a way, this is a question of "easy" vs "simple". Easy, to let ClojureScript accidentally differ (hey, it's better) and just document it. Simple, to have one harmonious core language. So I am inclined to put it in as a defect, even though I prefer ClojureScript's "case". -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
