On 16 Mar, 22:55, Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> wrote: > My remark was pointed at the fact, that before it was > claimed, that the one way doesn't work in Clojure and > one has to go the other. And then the same person > goes on to contradict him(or her?)self. But be it... > > To say something more constructive for the discussion: > here Rich's original answer on the matter: > > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_frm/thread/c3418875208d...
I bet it's me the "him(or her?)self" :-) I had already read Rich's opinion, after searching about old threads about the subject. I think he made a very reasonable decision, but he was talking about production code. What we are discussing here is the usefulness of such constraints when just playing at the REPL, a very different environment. Among the many answers, a (IMHO) reasonable solution has been proposed, which I repeat here: - the REPL could allow for an option to just warn about missing definitions; - when loading/compiling a file, Clojure could parse all definitions before complaining about missing ones. It seems that such a solution would offer both maximum flexibility when prototyping and maximum sanity checking when finalizing the code. What do you think? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
