> On Sep 30, 2018, at 18:54, Eric Lavigne <lavigne.e...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would not use keyword namespaces in this situation. Users of the "fetch" > function will likely type :timeout, :status, and :body when using this > function. Keyword namespaces would just force users to type longer names for > these.
Thanks for the response, Eric. Leaving :timeout aside for the moment, the issue I'm wrestling with is that you never know what your clients will do with the response. That makes it hard to anticipate the likelihood of keyword collisions, especially for a more complex compound response. There are also some fringe benefits, like greater synergy with clojure.spec and a kind of self-description effect (again, more relevant for larger APIs). I've also heard some library developers say they've adopted namespaced keywords almost everywhere, so I guess I'm just wondering about where to draw that line. -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
