On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Ken Wesson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Stuart Halloway > <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wrote: >>> Breaking source compatibility with just about every single preexisting >>> line of Clojure code out there is supposed to make our lives *easier*? >>> I'd dearly love to know how -- my cousin is a stage magician and he's >>> always on the lookout for new tricks, so this would make a nearly >>> perfect Christmas present for him. :) >> >> We are aware that this is a breaking change. :-) >> >> In addition to talking on IRC and the mailing list, we checked dozens of >> Clojure libraries (code review and test suite) and found *minimal* breakage. >> If anyone has different empirical evidence to offer, please do so. > > Define "minimal". >
It's a breaking change. It will be clearly documented as such. Whether you think it is the right thing, minimal or whatever else is not going to change it. There have been very few breaking changes made in Clojure, given its age, and this is going to be one of them. You'll either have to get over it, or move on. Your dissatisfaction is noted. The discussion period for this has passed. Thanks, Rich -- 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
