Stuart is gonna love you guys ;)
On Feb 23, 2:59 pm, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Stephen C. Gilardi <squee...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > At that point, it seems only a small step to remove "require" entirely which
> > I think would be a long-term plus--coalescing two very similar things
> > (require and use) into one (use) with (possibly) an additional option.
>
> > In order to keep it clear what non-core symbols refer to, several of us have
> > been recommending always using either :as or :only and only very rarely if
> > ever a "naked" use.
>
> > How about this as an alternative in the same spirit as your proposal:
>
> > - change the name of :require to :use -- :use with no options changes
> > from an implicit "refer all" to an implicit "refer none"
>
> > - :as, :only, :exclude, and :rename work as they do now
>
> > - add an :all option to cover the case of really wanting to refer in
> > all of the subject namespace. It would have the same effect as ":exclude
> > ()". (Alternatively, perhaps we intend for this to be a rare enough use case
> > that ":exclude ()" by itself would suffice.)
>
> > Of course this would be a bigger, definitely breaking change, but not
> > breakage that will be at all difficult to find or fix in old or new code.
>
> I'm completely in favor of all of this -- let's do it!
>
> --Chouser
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
