On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Brian W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another issue I had is we don't have a good blanket term for Vars, > Refs, Agents, and Atoms. Rich sometimes calls them "reference types", > but that term already has a different meaning in Java. I considered > "meta-references", but then I realized that, say, the symbol pointing > to a Var is a meta-reference---a reference pointing to a reference--- > not the Var itself. I've settled for now on "reference object" and > "reference object type", but these are confusingly close to "reference > type".
I would say to stick with "reference types" and just explain what is meant by the term. I have a feeling that introducing new, undefined terms will just confuse things more. In fact, it seems to me that both Java and Clojure have a pretty similar definition for the term. More or less, a reference type is a type whose value is a reference to a data structure on the heap. I think that by taking a sentence or two to point out the similarities and differences between the ways Java and Clojure use the term, any confusion will be greatly reduced. Regards, - J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
