For what it's worth I'm a big fan of the wishful thinking programming style. I write some functions how I think they should look, declare the functions I haven't defined yet. Then I implement the lower level functions, write some tests- then usually the higher level stuff works without too much tweaking. In a non-functional programming language this doesn't work so well, but it's a good fit for something like Clojure.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Timothy Pratley <timothyprat...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > A fuller discussion can be found here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/a99b420d5ee0aa40/47f8c2ab6845e9ae > Which has links to the simple patch I tried, and discusses the more > advanced technique Laurent experimented with. > Elena subsequently developed an emacs plugin which looks interesting > (I'm a VI ninja though so haven't used it) > > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/ca7076f4c6591fdd/cda5cf10b89a3679 > > My own experience FWIW was that it was great for two weeks coding with > autodef, then for about a week I became frustrated with my typos and > disabled it. More promising solutions might come from an external tool > (such as Knuth's literate programming noweb) or IDE support like Elena > described. > > For now my work flow is write the code backwards (ie: manually move > the cursor up) and/or chopping and pasting. Then when I'm happy with > it, I re-chop it all in my 'preferred' order and put a declare at the > top. That sounds quite inefficient, but VI is really great for re- > organizing text blocks so it is not too strenuous. That said, I'm > really interested in ways that "literate programming" style can be > followed with the least external support. > > > Regards, > Tim. > > > On Mar 26, 4:15 pm, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Timothy Pratley > > > > <timothyprat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It is also quite trivial to patch the compiler to auto-def symbols as > > > it finds them instead of throwing an error. > > > > I would be interested in knowing how to do such a patch. When I work > > on code, I like to organize my functions in a way that makes it easy > > to read and understand what is going on. As I work on longer chunks > > of Clojure code, I'm finding that shuffling around the functions to > > avoid a lot of forward declarations is destroying the readability of > > my code. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
