On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Elena <egarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 12:15 am, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <squee...@mac.com> wrote: >> If *autodef-unresolved-symbols* is true, and if "a" has never been >> mentioned before, this interaction with Clojure: >> >> user=> a >> java.lang.Exception: Unable to resolve symbol: a in this context >> >> would become: >> >> user=> a >> java.lang.IllegalStateException: Var user/a is unbound. > > Is an exception needed here? Don't exceptions mean computing has been > aborted and shouldn't we use them to signal errors, not warnings? > Would a simple message from Clojure (a special formatting to allow the > IDE to highlight it) be better?
I understand why people want to be able to do things like this: (defn b [] (a)) (defn a [] (...)) But that's completely different from the above. The above is more like: (a) (defn a [] (...)) Why would you want that to warn and not be an error? What would you expect it to do if it was just a warning? i.e. at the REPL, what would you expect that to print at each step. user=> (a) ??? user=> (defn a [] (...)) #'user/a -- Michael Wood <esiot...@gmail.com> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
