On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Jules <jules.gosn...@gmail.com> wrote: > <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 :-)
+1. I think this can be done. It just needs to be that 20+ params routes through .applyTo/applyToHelper instead of the .invoke methods. There will no doubt be a performance hit though, and perhaps a substantial one. -- Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more civilized age. -- 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
