On 28 Sie, 07:00, Stuart Sierra <the.stuart.sie...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 27, 3:42 pm, B Smith-Mannschott <bsmith.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This thread got me thinking that when a namespace is partially promoted to > > Clojure proper, it might be good to provide a reduced version of the old > > namespace, providing just the functionality that was not promoted as an > > alternative to complete removal. > > Speaking as their author, c.c.io and c.c.str* should be removed > completely. If a function or macro didn't get promoted to Clojure > proper, it is because it was poorly written or redundant.
Could you elaborate? What is redundant or poor about with-out-writer and with-in-reader? Daniel -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
