Steven:
Regarding Alex Miller's "Voting" message of today, you could consider
voting on this related ticket if you are so inclined:
http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1527
I just realized that having a warning in a lint tool like Eastwood for
using characters other than those explicitly endorsed in the documentation
might be useful. I also suspect a lot of people would want it off by
default, given that it might be fairly noisy for some projects.
Andy
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Steven Yi <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thanks for the reply, that was how I understood the intention of that text
> as well. It is ambiguous though, considering the discussion of
> auto-gensyms later in the page mentions:
>
> "If a symbol is non-namespace-qualified and ends with '#', it is resolved
> to a generated symbol with the same name to which '_' and a unique id have
> been appended. e.g. x# will resolve to x_123. All references to that symbol
> within a syntax-quoted expression resolve to the same generated symbol."
>
> Which is to say, the text describes symbol names and using '#'.
>
> Anyways, I get that '#' usage remains open for interpretation and later
> design decisions. I thought maybe because it was already used in
> auto-gensyms and because of how read() and syntaxQuote() relate in
> LispReader, it might mean that '#' became a definitive part of permitted
> symbol name characters. I think a second look at that made me realize it
> could still be reinterpreted.
>
> So, although I like the use of '#' for my use case, it's easy enough to
> revise my design to use a different character here.
>
> That said, wouldn't it better then for the compiler be made more
> restrictive now (i.e., only permit symbol names with '#' within syntax
> quote)? For example, the following compiles and runs fine in the REPL:
>
> (let [a# 4 b#a 3] (println a# b#3))
>
> Because you're telling me I can not depend on '#' for symbols, I will have
> to make this change in some released code, where I had been using '#' in
> keywords, and that's a breaking change for my API. It would have been much
> nicer for me if such reserved things are treated as errors, so that I don't
> write valid code now that is at risk of breaking later.
>
> There are also other characters, such as '$', '%', '=', '&', '|', '>',
> '<', that also work now but are not listed in the website text regarding
> symbol names. Some, like '=', '>', and '<' are in common use as part of
> symbol names. ('$' seems often used with as->). As a user, I see one
> description in text, but in real world code I see other things in use, and
> that makes it confusing. It would be useful (to me at least) to have this
> be a little clearer what is reserved and what is not.
>
> Thanks!
> steven
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 8:38:28 PM UTC-5, Alex Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 6:33:49 PM UTC-6, Steven Yi wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I wanted to understand whether '#' may be treated as a valid character
>>> for symbols. The Clojure site [1] has:
>>>
>>> "Symbols begin with a non-numeric character and can contain
>>> alphanumeric characters and *, +, !, -, _, ', and ? (other characters
>>> may be allowed eventually)."
>>>
>>
>> The general advice here is that the characters listed here are guaranteed
>> to be valid now and in the future. Characters not listed here may be
>> accepted now or used within Clojure, but are not guaranteed to work in the
>> future.
>>
>>
>>> I realized I was using # today in a symbol without thinking much of
>>> it. However, the syntax highlighting in Vim marked it oddly when it
>>> was at the end of the symbol name versus in the middle of the name.
>>> (The use case is denoting musical notes using lists of symbols, such
>>> as '(c c# d eb) ).
>>>
>>
>> Same as above - this works now, but is not guaranteed to always be valid.
>>
>> auto-gensyms also employ # as part of symbol names, but I do not know
>>> if that should be considered a kind of special case.
>>>
>>
>> Same as above - Clojure may use these symbols to mean special things
>> (like auto gensyms in syntax quote), but that right is reserved for Clojure.
>>
>>
>>> Any clarifications appreciated!
>>> steven
>>>
>>> [1] - http://clojure.org/reference/reader
>>>
>> --
> 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.
>
--
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.
