2009/2/22 Chouser chou...@gmail.com
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
My point is simply that whether something is immutable or not has nothing
to
do with how that data structure is being used in the program.
Naming conventions signify usage.
I'm kind of used to Java nowadays, where CONSTANTS_ARE_UPPERCASE. I'm
trying to figure out if Clojure has equivalent conventions.
What I've seen:
names-with-dashes instead of CamelCase
*global* for global variables (?)
Parameter name conventions (from Stu's book): val, coll, a, etc.
What are
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Howard Lewis Ship hls...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm kind of used to Java nowadays, where CONSTANTS_ARE_UPPERCASE. I'm
trying to figure out if Clojure has equivalent conventions.
What I've seen:
names-with-dashes instead of CamelCase
Right.
*global* for global
In our software, we use uppercase or +name+ as constant names.
Both Java and RUBY use uppercase, I think it's more a matter of taste
what you decide to use.
Ideally it should be obvious by looking at the name that some name is a
constant name.
Both of the above satisfy this criteria.
Luc
On
+name+ is also in line with Common Lisp patterns
http://www.cliki.net/Naming%20conventions
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Luc Prefontaine
lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca wrote:
In our software, we use uppercase or +name+ as constant names.
Both Java and RUBY use uppercase, I think it's more a
Mark Volkmann r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com writes:
As best I can tell Clojure doesn't have a convention for constant names.
Everything that's not expected to be rebound at runtime
(*special-variables*) is by definition a constant (with the exception of
refs, agents, and atoms). You don't need a
The fact that the Clojure data structures are immutable and that some of
those data structures might be used logically constants are two separate
concerns. When reading Clojure code, we've already internalized the fact
that the data structures are immutable. Using a naming convention for a
David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com writes:
The fact that the Clojure data structures are immutable and that some
of those data structures might be used logically constants are two
separate concerns.
I don't understand what this means. What's the difference between using
a value that doesn't
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is simply that whether something is immutable or not has nothing to
do with how that data structure is being used in the program.
Naming conventions signify usage. You could write a pure Java
program and make
Thanks for the points.
What I was thinking, was that for things like π, in Clojure (as in CL),
perhaps it makes to sense to mark it like so:
+pi+
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Chouser chou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
My
We chose to keep a naming convention for constants mainly because we are
mixing Java, Ruby
and Clojure in the same system. We have to replicate constants between
the different languages.
We needed a common anchor somehow to keep track of things and be able to
track down
changes.
We typically use
11 matches
Mail list logo
