On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:06 PM, j-g-faustus <johannes.fries...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi, > > just started looking at Clojure, and it looks promising as a modern- > day Lisp for practical use. > > I saw this presentation on Clojure: http://clojure.blip.tv/ and I > wholeheartedly agree with the design principles. Unified access to all > kinds of collections (list, array, struct, hash) is something I sorely > missed in CL back in the day (late 90's), and I like the focus on > practical programming in the modern world (multicore/multithread, > leveraging existing libraries, a stable and mature VM plaform etc.). > Looking forward to getting to know Clojure better. > > But I have a question: Why are there *four* ways to do an import, each > with slightly different syntax and semantics? > :refer shouldn't be used by you at all. :import brings in java classes :use brings in the names from another clojure namespace without requiring namespace qualifications :require brings in the names from another clojure namespace requiring namespace qualifications. So if ns foo has a var bar, if you do (use 'foo), you can just refer to bar, but if you do (require 'foo), you have to say foo/bar, not just bar. It is quite common for me to use all three, use, require, and import, in the same namespace declaration, as they do three different things. If I had to get rid of one, I'd get rid of use. But it's nice in some circumstances. Brian -- 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
