On Feb 16, 12:06 pm, Jeffrey Straszheim <straszheimjeff...@gmail.com> wrote: > You're right, of course, but in life compromises must happen. If Rich > proceeds *with no regard* for Pragmatic's needs, they have a recourse which > is simply no Clojure book. Or a Clojure book that has broken examples. >
Agreed. I'm afraid my original came out sounding more militant than what I intended. It was really a reaction to some posts which correctly suggested that Clojure would suffer by being touted by an out-of-synch Programming Clojure but also failed to suggest compromise on Pragmatic's side of the equation. The tone seemed to be permissive of Pragmatic proceeding *with no regard* for Clojure's current and soon-to-be reality. I don't believe that folks who have already forked over money for the book would be out of line in suggesting to Pragmatic that they adjust the publication schedule. Neither would inquiries from prospective buyers as to Pragmatic's intentions regarding book vs actual faithfulness. I didn't mean to suggest an all-out, mean-spirited attack but can see how that inference could easily have been drawn. Walt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
