On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 16 October 2008 07:22, Jim Menard wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> > Clojure doesn't support classes not in packages.
>>
>> Why not? Please don't take this question as a criticism. I'd really
>> like to know the reasoning. Was the choice technical or
>> philosophical?
>
> You can't do it in Java either. Any Java class that is not in the
> default package cannot access any class that is in the default package.
> The default package is an isolated world unto itself.
You can't write code to reference Foo in the default package from
com.mypackage.Bar, but you *can* use Class.forName("Foo") to get the
Foo class and to create an instance of Foo.
> As strictly a personal opinion, the so-called "default" package (more
> accurately referred to as the anonymous package) was a bad idea from
> the start.
As my friend points out, it *is* good for teaching and simple
one-offs. Otherwise, I tend to agree.
Jim
--
Jim Menard, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.io.com/~jimm/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
