On Jan 13, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Chas Emerick wrote: > Just to clarify my position (it's funny to see one's self quoted out of the > blue from an old thread!), I'm not at all suggesting "java naming > conventions" when it comes to namespacing.
By the way, I didn't mean to put Chas on the spot. Google led me to what seemed like a good quote, and I thought he deserved the credit. Please take that as a compliment. One suggested compromise (from the old thread) was to use a short first segment so that your namespace is technically multi-segment (good for Java interop), but still short enough to be esthetically pleasing. For example, clj.foo instead of plain foo. Seems like a good compromise to me. Now, one could say that the problem is in the Clojure compiler. Maybe single segment names should be explicitly disallowed. (They're bad, don't do that.) Or maybe the compiler should silently prepend "us.technomancy." to single-segment namespaces to make the world safe for Java interop with minimal danger of conflicts. That would make everybody happy. :-) Cheers, Steve -- 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
