On Jan 22, 5:13 pm, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Please don't. It has already been discussed and declined. The metadata > >>>> is uglier because we want doing this to be slightly ugly..
> >> The Clojure/core team is led by its technical advisors, Rich Hickey and > >> myself. In this particular case, I was on the fence and Rich called it. > > > OK, that answers the first question, but not the second. What was > > Rich's rationale? > > I have started a wiki page "Why Feature X Was Declined" [1]. The def- > variants are right where they should be: in a contrib library for people that > need them. This is something I run into all the time, and I end up just sort of shrugging and thinking, "ahhh screw it, let these constants pollute the namespace and I'll deal with it later if it causes problems." For the same reasons that someone wouldn't want to export function names, why would anything be different for other vars? For now I'm happy to use contrib, but it seemed a reasonable question to me. Thanks, Jeff -- 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
