On Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:54:17 PM UTC+1, TimDaly wrote:
[snip]
> In sum, I'm suggesting that it isn't very lispy to use
> hierarchical namespace naming conventions.
>
I think all you said is very true... *if* the user of a namespace is allowed
to change its name (i.e. Common Lisp's RENAME-
On Jan 13, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Steve Miner wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Chas Emerick wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify my position (it's funny to see one's self quoted out of the
>> blue from an old thread!), I'm not at all suggesting "java naming
>> conventions" when it comes to namespacing.
On Jan 13, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Chas Emerick wrote:
> Just to clarify my position (it's funny to see one's self quoted out of the
> blue from an old thread!), I'm not at all suggesting "java naming
> conventions" when it comes to namespacing.
By the way, I didn't mean to put Chas on the spot. Go
On Jan 13, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
> > Second, fs is using a singe segment namespace. I remember that
> > there have been some cautions against doing that. (But not everyone
> > agrees.) My understanding is that it's best for Java interop to have a
> > multi-segment namespace. (Referen
> Second, fs is using a singe segment namespace. I remember that
> there have been some cautions against doing that. (But not everyone
> agrees.) My understanding is that it's best for Java interop to have a
> multi-segment namespace. (Reference links below.)
http://clojure.org/libs
A lib name
