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 it pretty darn functional. You would still want to > mark values that are logically treated as constants as such.
Most named Vars are given a single value and this is never changed at all. They are created with 'def' or some variation thereof, and then examined in various ways, but not given new values. They are constant and they are named in the normal Clojure way: lowercase with dashes. Sometimes these Vars are changed later with another 'def', but this is meant to be a development or debugging technique, not something that should be incorporated into normal program logic. Anticipating this kind of change (or not) shouldn't influence the name of the Var. Some named Vars are expected to be given a thread-local value with 'binding', and in even more rare cases then adjusted using 'set!'. This usage is unusual enough that the names of such Vars warrant the *earmuffs*. Even less commonly than any of the above is changing a Var's root value with 'alter-var-root'. This is perhaps unusual enough that it warrants a naming convention to indicate that this particular Var will actually be non-constant at its root. Is there some other distinction that needs to be made? Does logically constant mean something different from what I've described above? --Chouser --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
