On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:20:35 -0400, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jun 18, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
On 18.06.2010, at 14:49, Rich Hickey wrote:
I don't see a way around this fundamental dichotomy. The semantics for
+ should be unified, and the operator that makes the other choice
needs to be called something else, or placed somewhere else.
If you are doing a lot of work with whichever semantic requires decorated
use, then it is going to seem awkward. A namespace based solution would
allow "natural" use of whichever semantic was appropriate for the domain
you are coding. It would still require an explicit choice - pulling in a
different namespace.
- how will someone 'protect' themselves from libraries written using
fastmath?
If I understand correctly, that is still an issue, whatever syntax is
chosen.
- similar looking code will change semantics when the ns switch is made
The switch is explicit.
- seems dangerous as it might violate the presumptions of the original
authors.
Not sure I understand this. Presumably if you change your selected
semantics within a namespace, you had better be sure of how that affects
all the functions in that namespace.
--
Hugo Duncan
--
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
