On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:20 PM, James Reeves <weavejes...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > Hi folks, > > I've recently found myself having to choose between dividing > functionality between many specific namespaces, or having a few very > generic namespaces. In theory, being specific is the better choice, as > it allows users to more accurately pick what they want to use. But if > most of the time you import library X, you'd also like W, Y and Z, you > start to end up with a lot of lines of code just loading libraries. > > Because I like to have my cake and eat it too, I wanted to keep my > specific namespaces, but also group them up in more generic ones. To > this end, I've created an "immigrate" function that interns every > public symbol in a namespace into the current namespace: > > (defn- merge-meta! > "Destructively merge metadata from a source object into a target." > [source target] > (.setMeta target > (merge (meta source) > (select-keys (meta target) [:name :ns])))) > > (defn immigrate > "Add all the public vars in a list of namespaces to the current > namespace." > [& namespaces] > (doseq [ns namespaces] > (require ns) > (doseq [[sym v] (ns-publics (find-ns ns))] > (merge-meta! v > (if (.isBound v) > (intern *ns* sym (var-get v)) > (intern *ns* sym)))))) > > The idea is that you can bundle up a set of specific libraries into a > more general package, so your users don't have to type so much if they > just want the defaults. > > - James Can you help me understand the difference between this and use (or :use in ns)? -- Cosmin Stejerean http://offbytwo.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
