2013/7/27 Lee Spector <lspec...@hampshire.edu>: > > On Jul 27, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Laurent PETIT wrote: >>> >>> But it's really not much better. This too will explode the number of lines >>> in many of my ns declarations. >>> >>> Is there indeed a reasonably concise way to do this? What is it? >> >> Would it still bother you if the IDE helped maintain the ns declaration? > > I guess it depends on the details. > > If I can completely ignore the ns declaration and tell the IDE, through a > menu selection or key command, something like "Make an ns declaration that > includes what I need, based on what I call here and where those things can be > found in the project directory and other reasonable places," and I really > never have to pay attention to the big mess that it produces for that, then > that would indeed be quite excellent. Better than what I have to do now.
Here's how I see it: it would change the ns declaration depending on the choices you make in the code completion list. That is, the code completion list would have to not only be made of what's already loaded in the REPL (as is generally the case), but also with all possible symbols from libraries currently accessible directly or transitively, depending on the project's classpath. I even sometimes dream of indexing via lucene all the open source libraries available via github, and have the created Index be the base for code completion. This would probably be awesome. After all, in a project, it's generally the project's source code which changes and needs dynamic treatment. The dependencies are generally known in advance, computable, and stable. > But if my actual ns declarations have to get a lot bigger than they are now > -- that is, if there isn't a reasonably concise way to use :require :refer > :all in place of :use -- then I would really be dependent on such an IDE > feature. And if the IDE "helps" but I still have to pay attention to the > details then that may still be worse than the current situation. > > Seems better to me to leave :use alone and/or to ensure that there's a > reasonably concise way to get the same effect from :require :refer :all. > Maybe there is -- nobody has chimed in with it yet but I only posted the > query this morning. > > Of course I'd still really like implicit "use what you need and don't bother > me about it unless you need to" -- but I am not holding my breath for this > :-). > > -Lee > > > -- > -- > 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. > > -- -- 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.
