On 16 Mrz., 11:49, Elena <egarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 10:40 am, Christophe Grand <christo...@cgrand.net> wrote: > > > > > Yes, it prevents typos to go unnoticed. You can write a forward > > declaration : > > > (declare check-services); equivalent to (def check-services) > > > (defn main [] > > (check-services)) > > > (defn check-services [] > > 1) > > OK, thanks. I was expecting a behavior similar to Scheme (and maybe > Common Lisp). > > Doesn't that hampers interactive development? I mean: you have to > develop the program in a more controlled manner.
Didn't you write only yesterday that you want to buy Lispworks? Speaking about it: When you define a gui (either manually or by using the builder), and then you want to add callbacks, you can not just say: :callback #'my-function and then later in that file actually implement my-function. It will complain that the definition is not yet known. So, at least in some cases this is also not possible in CL. Only today I found myself typing (decla...) in Lispworks, as I was thinking in Clojure. The behaviour of Clojure can be seen as a disadvantage, yes, because you either need these forward declarations, or you need to arrange functions different. But it also protects you from typos. And this can be even more important. Imagine you have a complex program and accidently made a typo, and this will go unnoticed for days and days, until the program actually runs your code... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
