ha ! ha ! I really like the comparison core/kitchen sink :))) I find it appropriate.
It never really bothered me to require an external lib to get these fancy definitions. And I use them every where .... Core should restricted to ... core things. What makes Clojure run by itself. Syntactic sugar needs to hosted elsewhere. def- and similar are just that, syntactic sugar. They're not needed to get Clojure up and running. And yes, defn- should be located elsewhere than in core. +1 for moving it out of core, at least, defn- should not be make publicly available by core. By the time we get Clojure written in itself, the core has to be cleaned up of non-essential things and moved to layers were implementation differences have less/no impacts while helping shrink it. Luc P. On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 13:10:20 -0400 Stuart Halloway <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't understand your comment about "polluting" the language > > core. Do you really think people are going to use def- for some > > other purpose? If you don't, then it is not pollution. > > Fair enough. Maybe pollution wasn't the best word. Introducing a > combinatorial set of names is a [some other word for bad thing] for > core, even if we agree what the names mean. > > > I think the big issue here is > > I think that the big issue here is that we do not agree on how > careful the dev team should be about adding things to core. I think > we should be quite careful. The name is "core" not "kitchen-sink". > If anything, core is already too big. > > > that certain functions in Clojure core *imply* the existence of > > other certain functions in the core. When they don't exist, it > > comes as a surprise. Surprise is bad. > > Agreed, but this is how you argue for a complete set, not for a > convenient subset. No one seems to be asking for defmacro-, even > though core itself defines a private macro. > > > defn- implies the existence of def- > > Then let us deprecate defn-. > > > The other example that immediately leaps to mind is that the family > > of get-in, get, and update-in implies the existence of update. It > > is rather startling to me that update does not exist in the core. > > This is a good question. I don't know why I never noticed its > absence. Have other people missed this? > > Stu > -- Luc P. ================ The rabid Muppet -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
