Hi,
On Mar 8, 10:23 pm, CuppoJava <[email protected]> wrote:
> And yet, the writer of the library shouldn't have to be aware that the
> user *might* bind fast-println to println.
> And the user of the library shouldn't have to be aware of the
> implementation details of fast-println to want to bind println.
Maybe this is just bad design? There was a thread about monkey
patching. Using a different binding for println is just that. And as
you see it introduces the same problems as it does in other languages.
As a library developer I would care a **** what a user might want to
rebind. If I did, I would not be allowed to trust a single Var. Please
don't let us enter this SPAM country. Vars which are intended to be
rebound should be clearly labeled so - in the docstring and possibly
with *earmuffs*.
If I intend to design my fast-println so, that it can be used as a
replacement of sorts of the usual println, I can protect against such
a problems with the mentioned let. But then my println's don't compose
anymore...
(binding [println fast-println]
...
(binding [println fancy-println]
...)
...)
I'm not sure it is worth to tinker with core functions. At least not
in such a simple way.
Sincerely
Meikel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
