Is there a principled reason for this? I have written some code that
(unintentionally) limits itself to refs because it assumes that all
reference types can sit in function position.
Thanks,
Stu
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are s
On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
Is there a principled reason for this? I have written some code that
(unintentionally) limits itself to refs because it assumes that all
reference types can sit in function position.
This discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/br
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Stuart Halloway wrote:
>
>> Is there a principled reason for this? I have written some code that
>> (unintentionally) limits itself to refs because it assumes that all
>> reference types can sit in function
On Oct 4, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Mark Volkmann wrote:
Minor technicality ... Vars are a reference type, but deref and @
don't work with them.
I'm guessing you're thinking of an interaction like this:
user=> (def a 3)
#'user/a
user=> @a
java.lang.ClassCastException: java.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>
>> Minor technicality ... Vars are a reference type, but deref and @ don't
>> work with them.
>
> I'm guessing you're thinking of an interaction like this:
>
> user=> (def a 3)
