On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In Clojure, namespaces are different from the host's packages, in > ClojureScript they are the same (insofar as they match the Google Closure > approach). > Makes sense. > Why all the attention to :use - I thought everyone agreed using it is a bad > idea? > I like pairing :use with :only especially between files that belong to the same library. > In any case, ClojureScript is a subset and right now that subset doesn't > include :use. People who want it will have to explain why they think it's > important. Its cost is that namespaces have to be enumerable, which poses > challenges for code (re)loading and modularity for Clojure. The only benefit > I see is that you can avoid a (minimum 2 character) prefix. > > Rich Yeah I can see the cost/benefit here. I haven't had time to dig into ClojureScript for anything substantial so I don't know if this "feels" problematic in practice. I suspect in the end it won't matter much and it does encourage good style. David -- 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
