On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi <squee...@mac.com> wrote: > > At that point, it seems only a small step to remove "require" entirely which > I think would be a long-term plus--coalescing two very similar things > (require and use) into one (use) with (possibly) an additional option. > > In order to keep it clear what non-core symbols refer to, several of us have > been recommending always using either :as or :only and only very rarely if > ever a "naked" use. > > How about this as an alternative in the same spirit as your proposal: > > - change the name of :require to :use -- :use with no options changes > from an implicit "refer all" to an implicit "refer none" > > - :as, :only, :exclude, and :rename work as they do now > > - add an :all option to cover the case of really wanting to refer in > all of the subject namespace. It would have the same effect as ":exclude > ()". (Alternatively, perhaps we intend for this to be a rare enough use case > that ":exclude ()" by itself would suffice.) > > Of course this would be a bigger, definitely breaking change, but not > breakage that will be at all difficult to find or fix in old or new code.
I'm completely in favor of all of this -- let's do it! --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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
