On Nov 30, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Sam Ritchie <sritchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian, I like that too. It looks like you're providing the state when you do > the def-action? If I understand the question right, yes. A test of a state function would look like: (fact (incrementer {:value 1} 3) => {:value 4})) > Is the "self" variable "state", captured through the closure? `self` is the agent, whose dereference is passed in as the symbol named `state`. That part I'm uncomfortable with. I've put each agent in a namespace with its action functions. The convention is that the agent is named `self`, and `def-action` knows that convention. It works, but it reminds me too much of singletons and all those cases where you start out thinking a single instance is all you'll ever need and then discover you were wrong. -------- Latest book: /Functional Programming for the Object-Oriented Programmer/ https://leanpub.com/fp-oo -- -- 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.