On Tue Jun 30 09:55 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > typeof ColorType1 // "Color:s1" // where s1...sN is a generated > increment/key for a new user symbol > typeof ColorType2 // "Color:s2" > typeof ColorType3 // "Other:s3" > typeof ColorType4 // "s4" > > A seemingly predictable name is a rather bad idea, because it would be very > brittle, e.g., depend on other libraries loaded, or even loading order. It's > better to have clearly non-deterministic > (e.g. gensym) than something that pretends to be deterministic but isn't in > practice. > > In fact, it might be best if typeof returned the symbol itself. At least that > cleanly matches the generative nature of the type definition. If you want it > to work cross-realm, you have to broker > the symbol as usual. >
Can you explain how 'gensym' would be different? Google tells me: https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/gensym https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/clojure-1.5.1/src/jvm/clojure/lang/RT.java#L468 Internally I'd imagine you can represent it however you want (comparing an object pointer vs. a string), I see this more as a user-facing/illusion of simplicity thing. But anyways, understand that the intuitive thing doesn't always work out. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
