On Jul 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Colin Fleming wrote: > BTW Lee, going back to your original question, I think the solution that you > came up with is the only one I can think of that does what you want. Of > course you can put it on one line: > > (ns use2require.core > (:require [use2require [myfns :refer :all] [yourfns :refer :all]])) > > But I agree it's more verbose. Still, the idea of moving to :require is that > you're more explicit about what you're doing, so maybe that's a good thing. > Personally I prefer my require clauses explicitly listed so I have some > pretty huge ns > declarations, but it doesn't bother me - I hardly ever actually look at them, > and when I do I can immediately see what's going on.
Thanks Colin. I can appreciate this perspective, but for me, most of the time, having to be more explicit about this stuff is actually a bad thing. It has nothing to do with the problems I'm trying to solve -- it's just plumbing that I wish the language/system would take care of, and I don't want to have to deal with it every time I want to write some code in a new file/ns. I do understand why it's a good thing to be explicit about this stuff in many software development contexts. But it's usually a bad thing for me. Similarly: On Jul 27, 2013, at 7:46 PM, Alex Baranosky wrote: > On our work projects at Runa, we have an unwritten code standard of always > writing out the full namespace, and not using shortcuts as you suggest. The > reason being that it can be very hard to search for usages of a namespace if > you don't fully qualify them, which makes refactoring a nightmare on projects > with 250+ namespaces. This sounds like a good standard for projects with 250+ namespaces! Unless you have an IDE or other tool that allow you to find usages, which would seem to me to be an even better solution to this problem. But in any event it's not relevant to most of work I do and in fact it'd be a real drag. One of the ns declarations in a project of mine is currently 6 lines long. I wish it was zero, but it's 6. Okay, I've learned to live with that. But if I switch from :use to :require :refer :all (and if there's no more concise way than what I've figured out so far) then this will go to to about 20, depending on exactly how I express it. Yes, I could get away with slightly fewer lines if I make some of them really long, but in any event it's going to do something like triple the amount of junk I have to put at the top of the file. What an ugly PITA. So while I previously expressed some support for replacing :use with :require :refer :all I now take it back! Unless I've missed a more concise way to use :require :refer :all. -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.
