As stated in the article, I find the extra context of using :as aids maintenance more than you might expect. The only time I use refer is if the referred vars are conceptually owned, or the context is implicit by the name space using them. For me it is about responsibility and ignorance. :as implies distance/ignorance, :refer implies closeness/knowledge.
A concrete example, in my use-case tests I refer most vars from clojure.test for convenience but the thing being tested is aliased as 'sut'. I could swallow referring the forms being tested in the test case as well but I am used to the convention of 'sut' (subject under test). On 17 May 2015 at 16:23, Akiva <akiva.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > Makes sense. I guess my other question then would be if there are any > benefits to using :refer along with :as. > > :A. > > Stuart Sierra > May 17, 2015 at 10:21 AM via Postbox > Just like the rest of the article, it's about readability. With `:refer` you > don't know where a symbol came from when you encounter it in the middle of > the code. > > –S > > > > On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 4:05:14 PM UTC+1, Akiva Schoen wrote: > -- > 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Akiva > May 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM via Postbox > In Stuart Sierra's article here > (http://stuartsierra.com/2015/05/10/clojure-namespace-aliases), he > recommends to use :refer sparingly but doesn't explain why this is a good > idea. Only thing I could think of without putting too much effort into it is > that it makes it slightly more tedious when you want to use a function from > a namespace that hasn't been already explicitly referred. > > Are there no benefits other than possibly excluding function names that > might otherwise suffer a namespace clash (assuming their namespace isn't > being aliased already)? > > Thanks, > Akiva > > > -- > Sent from Postbox > > -- > 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
