On Sep 3, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Chouser wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have been thinking recently that "(:refer ...)" would make a good >> supported reference argument. Instead of "(:refer-clojure ...)", I >> suggest >> "(:refer ...)" which acts like any other call to refer but doesn't >> require >> its arguments to be quoted. "ns" would still refer to all of >> clojure if >> there is no explicit "(:refer clojure ...)" argument present. > > Personally, I'd rather nobody use refer for anything except the > 'clojure namespace itself. This would also be an argument against > :use. But my opinion seems to be in the minority, so I'll once again > drop it until I can find a new excuse for bringing it up again. :-) Was that conversation on the list? Just curious... > >> :refer (when you know another namespace is already present and you >> want to >> bring some or all of it into this namespace with filters) > > Is there any reason not to use :use in this case? :use is more > robust, as it doesn't rely on your assumption that the namespace is > indeed already present. The only namespace I'm aware of that doesn't > behave properly with :use is 'clojure, since it's loaded from > clojure/boot.clj instead of clojure/clojure.clj. > >> I like ":refer" over ":refer-clojure" because it's more general and >> shorter. > > Well, it's not really shorter since you'd have to say ":refer clojure" > instead of ":refer-clojure". But it is more general, and therefore > requires less code to support more cases. If it's useful, I'm fine > with it. > > The only other point I'll bring up is that it may be slightly less > surprising for a missing :refer-clojure to automatically refer > 'clojure than it would be for the more general :refer to have a > special case for the refering of 'clojure if it's not mentioned. Having both :use and :refer is unnecessary and will confuse newcomers and there's no obvious benefit. I'm in the :refer-clojure camp, with its absence bringing in all symbols from clojure but with a simple way to turn it off. Perhaps (:refer-clojure false) or using a special argument, such as :all, with the :exclude filter. > > >> On the subject of shorter, the name "clojure/load" is already in >> use, but >> would be a better name for "load-resources" than "load-resources". >> I think >> we should consider changing the name of the former to something >> else like >> "load-reader" and using "load" for what is now load-resources >> (and :load for >> what is now :load-resources). > > I have no objection to this. Sounds good. > > > --Chouser > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
