On Nov 24, 7:50 pm, Krukow <karl.kru...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 5:42 pm, André Thieme <splendidl...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > But in real programs things are not so easy. We have refs in refs. > > This is just a thought experiment. But what about actually having refs > in refs? I'm not sure if I am reinventing mutable object here, so > please shoot me down ;-) > Please ignore :-( Just realized I didn't actually understand the original post!
-- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
