On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 1:15:14 AM UTC+2, red...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I have found the access control stuff in Java to be an incredible pain.
> When attempting to compose a larger system from the parts. Generally
> everything is compulsively private, so if an api doesn't exactly expose
>
I do understand that point of view and largely agree. However, some (pretty
small) functions or constants are private to some namespace, or rather, to
some scope inside a namespace. I consider the public functions as the 'API
of the namespace'. Internals shouldn't be exposed, so I can change
i
Allright, so I'll probably stick to top-level lets... Thx!
Op woensdag 26 augustus 2015 18:44:18 UTC+2 schreef Herwig Hochleitner:
>
> I can't really speak to what's more idiomatic, but there is a slight
> difference between a top-level let and ^:const ^:private.
> ^:const makes the compiler dire
On 8/25/15 12:06 AM, Kurt Sys wrote:
> I'm refering to a few posts in an old thread:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/r_ym-h53f1E/RzUdb5oYeX4J
>
> What really puzzles me is that it doesn't seem to be generally
> regarded as idiomatic Clojure style to just use top-level (let)s for
I can't really speak to what's more idiomatic, but there is a slight
difference between a top-level let and ^:const ^:private.
^:const makes the compiler directly inline the form, thus it works only on
pr-dup - able values. This has gotten me by surprise some times.
This also duplicates values, tha
**EDIT:
I've put some (private, mostly pretty small) 'helper'-functions outside the
let-block. I like this kind of construct in some way. It makes a clear
distinction between:
1. functions that don't use the 'namespace constants', mostly helper
functions (very often, most of these can be
Well, honestly, I tend to use pretty big lets in my namespaces. I know I
can use (private) namespace-scoped variables (or rather, contstants :) ) ,
but somehow, I don't really like them. So what I mostly have now:
(ns my.namespece
(require [other.namespace : as o]
[cool.namespace
*** premature send ***
Ya know, I've never seen that before but I like it!
I have previously noticed (by accident) that you can have "naked"
expressions in a file/namespace (i.e. not inside of a def/defn). For
example, I use a statement like this:
(ns ...
(:require [tupelo.core :refer [spyx]]
Ya know, I've never seen that before but I like it!
I have noticed that you can have "naked" expressions in a file (i.e. not
inside of a def/defn). For example, I use a statement like this:
(require '[tupelo.core :refer [spyx]])
(spyx *clojure-version*)
at the top of my main testing namespace t
