On Nov 21, 3:56 am, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've uploaded a patch that works like Stuart's file compiler, but it > takes lib names as arguments and compiles them.
Shucks, looks like all that was missing (from my 2nd try) was Symbol.intern! Oh well. This looks good to me. I think a file-based compiler might still be useful, e.g. for running Clojure as an "interpreter" like Perl/Ruby/Python. But maybe it's easier if the unit of compilation remains the lib. The only potential source of confusion I see is that compilation uses libs but invocation (clojure.lang.Script) uses files. I feel like Clojure is in an odd position right now. At first, it was source-code-based, like a scripting language, and people used it that way (at least I did). With the addition of the AOT compiler, it's looking more like a compiled language, with the bonus that it can compile source code on-the-fly. So we've got the scripting-language style: java -jar clojure.jar my- script.clj And the Java style: java -jar clojure.jar my.cool.lib So there's a decision to be made: should Clojure behave more like a scripting language (invoke by file) or more like Java (invoke by class)? There are pros and cons either way. Theoretically, it could support both. -Stuart Sierra --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
