Thanks everyone for all of the feedback. I think I have a solution to the warnings and if I understand deftype/defrecord, I should be able to replace defrecord with deftype in my implementation. I'll give it a try and report back when I have a chance.
Thanks, Damon On Dec 26, 7:31 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Alex Osborne <a...@meshy.org> wrote: > > > Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >>> Actually you don't need to AOT compile records or types. They work fine > > >>> for interactive development. > > > >> Eh. That's not what I saw written elsewhere. Or is it just protocols? > > >> Though usually those are used hand-in-hand with records. > > > > Perhaps you're thinking of gen-class? > > > No. > > > > Protocols are also fine for interactive development. > > > Someone here definitely said, recently and specifically, that at least > > one of the feature-complex around deftype/defprotocol/defrecord > > required AOT compilation. > > definterface/deftype/defprotocol/et al do not require AOT. structmaps are a > legacy feature. defrecord is the way to go now. > > I've encountered some odd behavior at the SLIME REPL on occasion, but I > haven't yet pinpointed a specific flow to recreate. It wasn't serious enough > to impede interactive development. > > David -- 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
