thanks guys. On Sunday, 24 March 2013 19:27:59 UTC, Shantanu Kumar wrote: > > > > On Sunday, 24 March 2013 23:34:38 UTC+5:30, Jim foo.bar wrote: >> >> On 24/03/13 17:49, Shantanu Kumar wrote: >> > In this case, making the type immutable is probably encouraged but not >> > mandatory >> >> yes true, it's not enforced or anything like that, but I'd say it is >> more than just 'encouraged'... what would be the point of using >> clojure's reference types with something mutable? there is nothing to be >> gained from that, is there? the indirection of vars/refs only makes true >> sense when dealing with values and pure functions... >> > > Right. I was being pedantic -- when I know what exactly I am doing this > information can be useful (i.e. as long as I only read from the old object.) > > Shantanu >
-- -- 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/groups/opt_out.
