On the topic of cursors, is there any reason why sets cannot be cursors? They are just maps of elements to themselves after all.
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:51:29 PM UTC-4, David Nolen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Don Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Which I take to mean that when you change application state outside of Om as > described above, then you will not obtain the benefit of some > current/upcoming Om features, again, is this the correct interpretation? > > > > Yes. > > > > If so, is there any potential way that might enable “outside of Om > application state changes” to make themselves compatible with (or become) > "inside of Om app state changes"? > > > > > For example, might it be possible to provide an input queue/channel (to Om) > of app-state change requests that could be transact!/update! -ed at some > point in the Om lifecycle/flow? > > > > I honestly don't see the point of swapping the app-state directly over using > the Om API. If instead your root component transacts! on the root cursor you > get all the the advantages of swap! and none of the disadvantages. > > > > David -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
