On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Sean Corfield <seancorfi...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > It has nothing to do w/ qualified or not qualified, namespaces or >> anything >> > else. In some programs you may want to freely mix functions and >> relations. >> >> But that's what namespaces are for in Clojure, yes? >> >> Seems like this would be equally clean: >> >> (require '[clojure.core.logic :as ?]) >> >> (?/run [q] ;; instead of run* >> (?/cons 1 q (cons 1 [2 3]))) ;; instead of (conso 1 q (cons 1 [2 3])) >> -- >> Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN >> An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ >> World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ >> > > That's a perfectly valid way to use core.logic and some people do. > > People can divide up their core.logic code bases however they see fit. I > personally see no benefit in putting relations in a different namespace. > > David > Also for sophisticated intermingling of fns and relations (see cKanren) you'll probably run into needless hassles with circular dependencies. 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
