On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:52 AM, James Reeves <jree...@weavejester.com> wrote: > On 14 December 2010 09:22, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: >> >> Am 13.12.2010 um 23:52 schrieb Ken Wesson: >> >>> That's not what I meant. I figure all of us have tabs permanently open >>> to there (I have two actually). What we don't have is the whole thing >>> memorized, or the time to read it all rather than use it for reference […] >> >> My solution to this problem is actually quite simple: I took the time to >> read it. > > One can also apply a measure of common sense.
I resent the implication that I didn't. > If you're writing a function that has a general use, such as changing > the metadata, you may very well consider the possibility it has already > been written. If you then open the API page and search for a function > that contains "meta", you'd soon run across vary-meta. Yes, but if you look for functions that work on atoms you won't, and someone looking for functionality like swap-meta! is at least as likely to think "atoms" as "metadata" when formulating a search. I don't think there's any point in endlessly rehashing this and trying to point a finger of blame. Nobody has actually done anything wrong here, as near as I can tell, OTHER than trying to turn this into a blame game by getting critical. -- 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
