On 9 July 2010 17:30, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed, foo.api sounds better than foo.core to me, now than I'm exposed to > that (core sounds more like 'internals'). But still I prefer to have the > library name at the end of the namespace, it's easier to spot than in the > middle (e.g. I prefer net.cgrand.parsley to paredit.core)
Is there any benefit to using a name like foo.core (or foo.api) rather than simply foo (beyond sytlistic considerations, that is)? Leiningen creates a foo.core source file as part of its new project skeleton, but I prefer foo. Before I start fighting Leiningen, are there any pitfalls I'll hit (other than the obvious problems of fighting your tools...)? Paul. -- 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
