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.

Reply via email to