On Mar 29, 11:46 pm, Cedric Greevey <cgree...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Shantanu Kumar > > > > > > > > > > <kumar.shant...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 81 (defn foo [...] > >> 82 (let [x (compute-something ...)] > >> 83 (do-something x ...) > >> 84 (calculate-whatever ...))) > > >> and you're able to edit lines 82, 83, and 84 but not line 81 (or > >> whatever). But I can't see any plausible circumstance where that would > >> be the case. > > > That's exactly the case. Somebody else owns/maintains `foo` and other > > functions/macros that `foo` corresponds with. I am only going to put > > in a macro in the body of `foo` in order to provide some value that is > > orthogonal to foo's main intent. There are several such functions > > (like `foo`) where I have to put in the macro. As I am not the owner > > of that code it does not make sense (from maintenance standpoint, > > currently) to control the way they are defined. Hope that clarifies. > > It still doesn't make sense. If you have permission to edit the > function, you have permission to edit the first line of the function. > And regardless you could substitute a different version of defn > throughout that namespace.
The change needs to be least intrusive and doesn't justify exposing more surface area than it should. It's a trade off. Shantanu -- 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
