> I don't understand your comment about "polluting" the language core. Do you > really think people are going to use def- for some other purpose? If you > don't, then it is not pollution.
Fair enough. Maybe pollution wasn't the best word. Introducing a combinatorial set of names is a [some other word for bad thing] for core, even if we agree what the names mean. > I think the big issue here is I think that the big issue here is that we do not agree on how careful the dev team should be about adding things to core. I think we should be quite careful. The name is "core" not "kitchen-sink". If anything, core is already too big. > that certain functions in Clojure core *imply* the existence of other certain > functions in the core. When they don't exist, it comes as a surprise. > Surprise is bad. Agreed, but this is how you argue for a complete set, not for a convenient subset. No one seems to be asking for defmacro-, even though core itself defines a private macro. > defn- implies the existence of def- Then let us deprecate defn-. > The other example that immediately leaps to mind is that the family of > get-in, get, and update-in implies the existence of update. It is rather > startling to me that update does not exist in the core. This is a good question. I don't know why I never noticed its absence. Have other people missed this? Stu -- 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
