On Feb 23, 2:59 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi <squee...@mac.com> wrote: > > 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!
Shouldn't you say, "all of this and more"? Wouldn't the require and use *functions* need some compatible changes? Walt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
