On 21 October 2014 17:15, Phillip Lord <phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
> James Reeves <ja...@booleanknot.com> writes: > > > So you're saying laziness and UAP are the same thing in your view? > > I am saying that UAP enables you to implement laziness freely. Sure, laziness feels like a subset of UAP. Regardless, we have a nice example in Clojure, where we not > distinguishing between data and computation allows us to do something > nice. > Yes... I agree it allows us to do something, but let's agree to disagree on whether that something is "nice" :) All of this discussion has made me think I should revist the issue. I > could put my own Map implementation on my vars as metadata, and have > this map work lazily, so that the calculation of the :doc metadata > happens through computation. > > That would be evil. > It would... but if you're set on this path of evilness, you might want to look at def-map-type in https://github.com/ztellman/potemkin - James -- 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/d/optout.
