<rant>
I think this issue reinforces my belief that arbitrary limits are bad. Re. defrecord - Should we put the onus on everyone using defrecord to manipulate wide datasets to remember that there is an arbitrary limit of 19 fields, or put some smarts into the defrecord macro ? I think we are in agreement that we should put some smarts in the defrecord macro. But, hold on, why do we need smarts in the defrecord macro ? Why ? because of an arbitrary limit in the number of params that a function can handle. So, why don't we put the smarts around function compilation/application to handle any number of params (within the JVMs ability). This way, we can avoid having to have smarts everywhere that a macro might expand to a function call with num params > 19. I have direct experience of being bitten by this. If handling this many params means a performance hit, then, by all means lets log a warning about it, but we should not trip up perfectly valid code. </rant> Ah! that feels better :-) Jules -- 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
