On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Victor - <bluestar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Why not just have, in db.clj. >> >> (def somefunction mylib/somefunction) > > I used to do that before, but I realized I was introducing a level of > indirection at a stage when the exact function signatures weren't clear yet. > I do agree that the preferred final solution can well be to always call > through function in the other namespace, though I think there may be > exceptions..
If you're worried about having files that don't themselves :require or :use mylib break if mylib/somefunction's signature changes, you can add a real layer of indirection: (defn somefunction [& args] (apply mylib/somefunction args)) and if mylib later changes, you can change db/somefunction to do something more complicated when calling mylib/somefunction. JIT will mostly kill the overhead of the extra indirection. Of course it's still possible a change to mylib's somefunction will require changes at all of db/somefunction's call sites and not just a change to db/somefunction, but a kind of compilation-unit-granularity Law of Demeter is at least observed now, where mylib changes may mean db needs to change (db :requires or :uses mylib) and db changes may mean foobar needs to change (foobar :requires or :uses db). P.S. please don't top-post. It's a shame that the behavior of the gmail/Google Groups interface seems to encourage top-posting; try to resist this. -- 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
