On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:13 AM, 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.. >>>> >>>> "We" do? Who is "we" and why does this "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.
I was expecting a list of specific features and the rationales for declining them, including def-, but there's nothing there but generic reasons why some features may have been rejected. In particular, there's no rationale apparent for including defn- in core but not including def- in core; the implication of what text IS at the web page you linked is that they should probably either both be in core or both be in contrib. -- 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
