> I think def should support docstrings, as ^{:doc "foo"} is 8
> characters longer then "foo" - not to mention consistency across
> definers as well as readability.I agree that there should be consistency across definers and that the default def should be the best. Removes unnecessary complexity out of the language too (I shouldn't have to remember two different way to write doc strings .. one for def, another for defn, etc.). > I would love a clojure without any (visible for the programmer) special > operators at > all, such that even def, . etc. could be redefined if necessary I don't feel this is such a great idea. There should be some (but few) constant primitive elements so I can understand someone else's code too. Consider a situation that someone has modified the 'if' special form! For one I can miss out that 'if' was redefined, even if that can be worked around, unless i read and grasp the new 'if' i can't begin to read other persons code. Its best to use special forms or functions made out of special forms unless some other macro etc is much more suitable and read-able. Would you like to read my code if I never use any special forms except to define my own wrappers of them - my-def, my-if, my-let ...? -- 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
