On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:18 PM, guns <s...@sungpae.com> wrote: > Oh, I was confused; I was thinking about sentinel values in user code. > Yes, I imagine a single private (Object.) would work just fine, with > very little overhead. >
First, I'd hope that sentinel values would be handled by the back-end implementation, as we're seeing core.sync implemented on other systems like ZeroMQ already. Second, as (Object.) doesn't play nicely over the wire, a random UUID or similar value would be much preferred. Third, I'd recommend reviewing, http://clojure.com/blog/2013/06/28/clojure-core-async-channels.html to understand why core.async is not just a better queue. Fourth, if you dislike how core.async works, just wrap it in your own library so it works the way you'd like. It looks like "core.async-with-nil" is available on Clojars. ;) With nil, without nil, it's just bike shedding. Clojure gives you the freedom to do it the way you want. -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
