On 16 Mar, 20:45, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > This has come up before. You can actually work around this (search the > mailing list for declare)
I've searched the mailing list and I've found also an explanation by Rich Hickey (I apologize for not having done it in the first instance) for such a design decision. I agree that allowing undefined symbols would lead to runtime errors. I'm only complaining about applying such sanity checks in the REPL, when I'm drawing a sketch. > Should the REPL have an "interactive" mode where it won't fire an exception > on undefined symbols and instead issue compiler warnings? If compiler > warnings were issued this would be a nice hook for Emacs and other IDEs. I think that would be ideal: if you intended to leave a symbol undefined, that warning would come expected, otherwise you'd know you had just made a typo. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
