"Meikel Brandmeyer" <[email protected]> said:
> On May 31, 10:58 am, "Sina K. Heshmati" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> foo.datatype-01 => (reset! state 13)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Again: of course you can! You are in the same namespace! In Clojure
> the "unit" is a namespace and not a type. If you want this level
> privateness you have to use one namespace per type. However this is
> not really the Clojure Way.
Here's my concern:
- My program (A) is running.
- B is running on the same VM.
- B accesses the state of A.
- B alters the state of A in an inconsistent way e.g. whenever the internal
state x changes, the internal state y also has to change accordingly, but B
only changes x.
- A is screwed.
The author of Clojure calls encapsulation a folly but I don't understand why
(?) How can we avoid situations like the one explained above?
I came up with the following, which does what I want by relying on the lexical
scope of functions. This is OK but the only problem is the fact that I have to
hardcode function calls for each type method.
(defprotocol prot-a
(op-a [self x y]))
(let [state (atom 10)]
(defn op-a
[self x y]
(+ x y (.member self) @state)))
(deftype t-a [member]
prot-a
(op-a [self x y]
(op-a self x y)))
(def t-a-1 (t-a. 5))
Is there a way to pass the function itself rather than making a new function
that calls the exact same function with the same arguments?
Kind regards,
SinDoc
--
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
