On 16 Mar, 21:57, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that it's not difficult. But, at least in my own experience, it's
> not the second step to cleaning up my programs.
>
> I generally try to get code that works, even if in a not really good looking
> shape. Then I refactor if it is really ugly-looking, or when I see the
> possibility to factorize between several functions.
>
> So I end up with more general functions, but still, I'm not sure if they
> deserve their own lib. And maybe they're just general enough for the purpose
> of the functions of my current file.
>
> It's in a third time, when I want to share code between several namespaces,
> that libraries in their own namespace show up.
>
> So I think there's room for what I suggested, because the step to seperate
> functions into libs by a criteria of level of abstraction does not appear
> that fast in my programming cycle.
You have just described my way of churning out code for fast
prototypes and ad-hoc programs. Abstractions and cleaning up come
later, once I've understood the task at hand better.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
