On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Sean Corfield <seancorfi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Denis, Mark, could you speak to what sort of things you're using these > for that make it convenient to have them in every namespace? > > set, string, numeric-tower, combinatorics all provide fundamental operations I need throughout my code. Also, within my project, I have a couple key files that provide constructors and basic conversions between representations for key data types. These need to be included in nearly every file. Of course, I also have file of my favorite utilities that I use all the time, including cgrand's improved cond. Replacing Clojure's cond with that cond means I also have to include a line in my namespace header to exclude core's cond. My work doesn't usually involve creating a standalone compiled program. I move around from namespace to namespace, interacting with my code from the REPL. In a sense, my code along with the REPL is just my "workbench", a suite of utilities that I use to solve problems interactively. Each file/namespace represents the additional code needed to solve a specific problem, but stands on what I have done before. This usage means that it makes a lot of sense for me to have access to REPL facilities from most namespaces. Similarly, I like to save the results of my problem solving session in a database. That means that within many namespaces, I need to have access to mongodb as well as my files which handle the way that my data structures are packed/unpacked into something storable in the database. One complication that hasn't yet been discussed in this conversation about preferring refer to use is that some libraries, such as Incanter, spread functions across several namespaces but the tutorials don't really tell you which functions come from which namespaces. The tutorial expects you to just "use" all of the relevant namespaces to use Incanter. Referring all the namespaces would complicate the use of this library considerably (unless you could assign the same alias to several different namespaces, can you do that?). For every function, you'd need to know which of Incanter's namespaces the function comes from; the division of Incanter functions into separate namespaces is not entirely obvious, that is a hard thing to remember. Just curious, why do you take such care to go through and remove any redundant imports? Ultimately, all the same namespaces are going to have to be loaded by Clojure, either directly or indirectly if they are used anywhere in your project. So you don't really save on load time, or the quantity of things that need to get loaded into memory. If you consistently use the same aliases across files, there's not really much downside to including them liberally -- doing so basically gives you your own preferred "batteries included" version of Clojure. -- 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
