On 21/09/2014 14:31, Lee Spector wrote:
I sort of agree with the bottom line here, but there are "non-throwaway" contexts in
which (2) won't apply because you are only "use"ing your own namespaces, and in which the
overall project is small enough that the chances of conflict in (1) are acceptab
On 19/09/2014 16:46, Lee Spector wrote:
On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:26 AM, John Gabriele wrote:
Don't use `use`. :)
Since the OP is new here I'll point out that that ":)" is probably a nod to the fact that
there's a long history of controversy on the utility/evils of "use". Some (like me) think
t
On 17/09/2014 15:28, Ashton Kemerling wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the 1 arg form is to help people who use >
along with apply, just in case the list is only 1 element long.
That is precisely why it should do the same thing with zero arguments,
which is what happens when you use apply with
On 15/09/2014 13:34, Phillip Lord wrote:
Jeremy Vuillermet writes:
Could it return a (partial > 2) ?
Because > works with n args and not just two.
The question was /why/ and yours is the best attempt to answer that, but
I think, slightly off the mark.
Firstly, the fact that > is variadic d
Hi list,
Is there a way to get Clojure warnings to act as errors and abort the
attempted operation? For now, I'm mainly interested in doing this in the
repl, because I will often do something like this:
(defn fn [x] (+ 1 x))
; WARNING: fn already refers to: #'clojure.core/fn ...
Oops! Di
