Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> writes: > (:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c]) > (:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all)
The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it with "and" and "not". > This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to > remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all) > somewhere else, etc. And cause frustration for people who find typing (:require clojure.test :refer :all) when they used to type (:use clojure.test) To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things simpler to me. Phil -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
