On May 14, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Colin Yates <colin.ya...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess a related concern is abstraction. I notice I often have functions > which work at different levels of abstraction in the same ns which makes me > uncomfortable. In OO land they would be package level or even instance > classes. I haven't yet found a way to solve this in clojure land. > To be explicit, I have a defn which calls a defn which calls a defn which > calls ...., having all of those defns public doesn't capture the hierarchy of > abstraction.
…although it would allow other users of your code to build their own abstraction hierarchies. They can’t do that if you make things private "arbitrarily". If you really want to separate them and provide strong guidance that there is an intended hierarchy of abstractions, put them in different namespaces — named to indicate the layers in your hierarchy — and leave them all public. That creates a much more reusable, extensible code base. IMO (now — I didn’t think that way five years ago). Sean Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "Perfection is the enemy of the good." -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- 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/d/optout.
