I appreciate that they stand out. Again, this is similar to the constants conversation earlier, visually marking the intended use is a good habit, IMHO. Of course this doesn't mean that error-kit should define the base error this way, but I intend to keep on wrapping my errors in earmuffs :) David
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM, samppi <rbysam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Small questions on error-kit—which I love and think that all clojure- > > contrib libraries should use—why do defined errors such as *error*, > > *number-error*, etc. have names surrounded by asterisks? > > Thanks for the endorsement! Have you used continue or bind-continue > yet? These are the features I'm less certain about. > > Your question is a very good one. Early versions actually rebound the > error Vars, so I named them appropriately. Of course that's not > exactly how it works anymore, but I grew accustomed to how they look > with earmuffs, and didn't change them. > > I'm hesitant to remove them because I like how they stand out in the > code. Perhaps it's not really necessary, or perhaps there's a better > naming convention we could use? Any thoughts? > > --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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
