Re: :require farms in Clojure?
And then goodbye statical analysis ... :-) 2011/7/20 Meikel Brandmeyer m...@kotka.de Hi, Am Mittwoch, 20. Juli 2011 06:38:27 UTC+2 schrieb Chas Emerick: Try: (ns myfuns (:require (foo.baz [a :as a] [b :as b] [c :as c])) I think he wants more something like this: (ns require.farm) (def xxx '[[foo.bar [a :as a] [b :as b]] frob.nicate]) (def yyy '[[foo.bar.c :as c]]) (ns require.userA (:require [require.farm :as requires])) (apply require requires/xxx) (ns require.userB (:require [require.farm :as requires])) (apply require requires/xxx) (apply require requires/yyy) Sincerely Meikel -- 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 -- 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
Salut Laurent, Am 25.07.2011 um 18:54 schrieb Laurent PETIT: And then goodbye statical analysis ... :-) I didn't say, that I think it's a good idea to do this. :) On the other hand I'm not afraid of dynamic analysis either. That's what VimClojure does at the moment anyway. Static analysis is – in general – confined to special cases known to the analyzer in the presence of macros. In practice it's probably doable in a reasonable way. Cordialement Meikel -- 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
2011/7/25 Meikel Brandmeyer m...@kotka.de Salut Laurent, Am 25.07.2011 um 18:54 schrieb Laurent PETIT: And then goodbye statical analysis ... :-) I didn't say, that I think it's a good idea to do this. :) On the other hand I'm not afraid of dynamic analysis either. That's what VimClojure does at the moment anyway. Static analysis is – in general – confined to special cases known to the analyzer in the presence of macros. In practice it's probably doable in a reasonable way. Certainly, ccw/eclipse also does dynamic analysis currently, but I still have the idea of using static analysis for when no REPL is started, for some kinds of refactorings, etc. In the end, I find it interesting to be able to reconcile the static dynamic views, maybe eventually being able to say to the user: beware, you're looking at a function definition in a file that's more recent in the repl, would you like to update, etc. Cordialement Meikel -- 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 -- 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
Hello. Is (:require ...) better than (:use [... :only (...)])? Though I've never worked on large Clojure program, sometimes I want to know something like namespaces using the function foo. When I move functions to better place, when I add a new arity and search somewhere suitable with new one, when I mark something duplicated, ... With :require, I grep awesome/foo, but there may be a/foo, or, if there required two a*, aw/foo. I also can grep :require clause, but :require clause don't tell me whether foo is used or not. With :use+:only, I grep a pattern like awesome :only \(.*\s?foo\s?.*\) (actually I may consider multi-lines). Of course there may be (:use [another.awesome :only (foo)]), but I read around the matched line and then I know the answer. Moreover, when I open other's code, on top of screen :require tells me something in awesome is used. In order to know what is used, read below. In contrast, :use+:only tells me foo in awesome is used. Any thoughts? Thanks. -- Name: OGINO Masanori (荻野 雅紀) E-mail: masanori.og...@gmail.com -- 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
Something akin to the clj-nstools ns+ in clojure proper would sure make life easier. -- 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:31 AM, pmbauer wrote: Something akin to the clj-nstools ns+ in clojure proper would sure make life easier. There's no way that `ns` and its constituent pieces are the last word in defining/managing codebase topologies, but they are a bit of a local maxima. ns+ looks nice (I'm surprised I haven't come across it so far), but I'm surprised that there haven't been more attempts to cut a better ns out there. As shown in the hello world example for ns+, it's trivial to augment or entirely replace ns, potentially with very different semantics for e.g. how namespaces map to files, what constitutes a lib, etc. - Chas -- 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Chas Emerick cemer...@snowtide.com wrote: There's no way that `ns` and its constituent pieces are the last word in defining/managing codebase topologies, but they are a bit of a local maxima. ns+ looks nice (I'm surprised I haven't come across it so far), but I'm surprised that there haven't been more attempts to cut a better ns out there. As shown in the hello world example for ns+, it's trivial to augment or entirely replace ns Bootstrapping is still a problem as clojure.core/ns is special-cased to always be available in every namespace ever. In our application at work we had to resort to defing ns+ in clojure.core inside user.clj in order for it to be available across the board--pretty cringe-worthy and doesn't compose. Would be happy to come up with a satisfactory solution to this. But nstools addresses one of my one remaining major pain points surrounding Clojure, and I'm looking forward to making better use of it. -Phil -- 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 20. Juli 2011 06:38:27 UTC+2 schrieb Chas Emerick: Try: (ns myfuns (:require (foo.baz [a :as a] [b :as b] [c :as c])) I think he wants more something like this: (ns require.farm) (def xxx '[[foo.bar [a :as a] [b :as b]] frob.nicate]) (def yyy '[[foo.bar.c :as c]]) (ns require.userA (:require [require.farm :as requires])) (apply require requires/xxx) (ns require.userB (:require [require.farm :as requires])) (apply require requires/xxx) (apply require requires/yyy) Sincerely Meikel -- 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
On Jul 20, 4:19 pm, Meikel Brandmeyer m...@kotka.de wrote: I think he wants more something like this: (ns require.farm) (def xxx '[[foo.bar [a :as a] [b :as b]] frob.nicate]) (def yyy '[[foo.bar.c :as c]]) (ns require.userA (:require [require.farm :as requires])) (apply require requires/xxx) Yes -- this is the kind of thing I was wondering about (although Chas' answer is immediately useful too--thanks). At this point I'm wondering if this is an idiomatic way to work with Clojure namespaces especially in larger projects with many sub- components as namespaces? Maybe one day we could have: (ns myproject (:require subproject.* :as :suffix) to require subproject.foo1 subproject.foo2... Thanks 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
stu stuart.hungerf...@gmail.com writes: Yes -- this is the kind of thing I was wondering about (although Chas' answer is immediately useful too--thanks). At this point I'm wondering if this is an idiomatic way to work with Clojure namespaces especially in larger projects with many sub- components as namespaces? I've found this to be an annoyance on large projects too. At work we've started experimenting with nstools, and it looks very promising: http://code.google.com/p/clj-nstools/ -Phil -- 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
:require farms in Clojure?
Hi, In larger Clojure projects with nested namespaces I've found there are less namespace pollution issues if I avoid (ns... :use...) forms in preference to (ns... :require...) forms. This approach sometimes leads to namespace constructs like: (ns myfuns (:require [foo.baz.a :as a] [foo.baz.b :as b] [foo.baz.c :as c...])) Is there an idiomatic way of coalescing these :require clauses into a :require farm that can be simply :require'd or is this the wrong way to manage namespaces in Clojure projects? Any advice much appreciated, 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
Re: :require farms in Clojure?
Stu, Try: (ns myfuns (:require (foo.baz [a :as a] [b :as b] [c :as c])) Cheers, - Chas On Jul 20, 2011, at 12:36 AM, stu wrote: Hi, In larger Clojure projects with nested namespaces I've found there are less namespace pollution issues if I avoid (ns... :use...) forms in preference to (ns... :require...) forms. This approach sometimes leads to namespace constructs like: (ns myfuns (:require [foo.baz.a :as a] [foo.baz.b :as b] [foo.baz.c :as c...])) Is there an idiomatic way of coalescing these :require clauses into a :require farm that can be simply :require'd or is this the wrong way to manage namespaces in Clojure projects? Any advice much appreciated, 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 -- 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
