Sean Corfield <seancorfi...@gmail.com> writes: > Deprecating (not removing) :use from ns seems reasonable but I really > don't see any value in a new unified syntax - esp. since it would have > to support the legacy syntax for several releases alongside (and then > you'd have to consider whether mixed syntax should be supported - > ugh!).
I totally agree with Sean. Maybe deprecate :use, and keep the rest as it is. The current syntax is really not hard, and it's very good that the keywords map 1-to-1 to the functions of the same name. Check the docs for `require`, then you know what `(:require ...)` does. The same goes for `use` and `import`. You don't have that match with the new proposed syntax where you have to ask yourself "is a vector with nested vector the syntax for `require` or `import` or whatnot?". And the only benefit seems to be that it's a bit more concise in some cases. I don't care if my ns declaration is 20 or only 12 lines long. It should be clear, and that's what the current syntax achieves. Bye, Tassilo -- -- 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.
