Well, honestly, I tend to use pretty big lets in my namespaces. I know I
can use (private) namespace-scoped variables (or rather, contstants :) ) ,
but somehow, I don't really like them. So what I mostly have now:
(ns my.namespece
(require [other.namespace : as o]
[cool.namespace :refer [coolyo]]
(defn- silly-function []
<...>)
(defn- another-variable-independent-function []
<...>)
(let [<a bunch of constants/variables used in (almost?) all public functions
>]
(defn some-api-function []
<...>)
(defn call-me-please []
<...>) )
I've put some (private, mostly pretty small) 'helper'-functions outside the
let-block. I like this kind of construct in some way. It makes a clear
distinction between:
1. functions that don't use the 'namespace constants'
2. helper functions (very often, most of these can be put in a kind of
seperate 'utility' namespace, but not always)
However, there are some againsts this as well (as slightly discussed in
other threads), by example:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/r_ym-h53f1E/2brnaduLYr4J
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/r_ym-h53f1E/O-Tvhgqt8lcJ
Instead of putting most stuff inside a big 'let', one could also argue to
define a bunch of 'globals':
(def ^const ^{:private true} my-constant <some-value>)
I'm not sure whether it makes a difference to add the ^{private
true}-metadata, but ^const surely does improve performance, which might be
important. Anyway, defining a bunch of global constants seems to work quite
similar to a rather big let.
I'm just wondering what's idiomatic or considered best practice in Clojure
(and why) because euh... well, just because I want to know :).
Op dinsdag 25 augustus 2015 23:27:19 UTC+2 schreef Alan Thompson:
>
> *** premature send ***
>
> Ya know, I've never seen that before but I like it!
>
> I have previously noticed (by accident) that you can have "naked"
> expressions in a file/namespace (i.e. not inside of a def/defn). For
> example, I use a statement like this:
>
> (ns ...
> (:require [tupelo.core :refer [spyx]] ...
> (spyx *clojure-version*)
>
>
> at the top of my main testing namespace tst.tupelo.core to get:
>
> *clojure-version* => {:major 1, :minor 8, :incremental 0, :qualifier
> "alpha4"}
>
>
> printed at the top of every test run. Another favorite is:
>
> (ns ...
>
> (:require [schema.core :as s] ...
>
> ; Prismatic Schema type definitions
> (s/set-fn-validation! true)
>
>
> to control Prismatic Schema in each namespace.
>
> I have also used other naked expressions (in both test and regular
> files/namespaces) as a kind of free-form scratchpad when experimenting with
> new code (since I can type so much faster in the editor than the repl).
>
> Thanks for the suggestion,
> Alan
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Alan Thompson <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Ya know, I've never seen that before but I like it!
>>
>> I have noticed that you can have "naked" expressions in a file (i.e. not
>> inside of a def/defn). For example, I use a statement like this:
>>
>> (require '[tupelo.core :refer [spyx]])
>> (spyx *clojure-version*)
>>
>> at the top of my main testing namespace tst.tupelo.core to get:
>>
>> *clojure-version* => {:major 1, :minor 8, :incremental 0, :qualifier
>> "alpha4"}
>>
>> printed
>>
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Kurt Sys <[email protected]
>> <javascript:>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm refering to a few posts in an old thread:
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/r_ym-h53f1E/RzUdb5oYeX4J
>>>
>>> What really puzzles me is that it doesn't seem to be generally
>>>> regarded as idiomatic Clojure style to just use top-level (let)s for
>>>> your "private" globals.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, here's the question: what's considered best practice in Clojure
>>> (what is idiomatic in Clojure): using private (namespace-scoped) globals
>>> variables or one big let over all (or at least, most) defns in a namespace?
>>> And why :)?
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
>>> <javascript:>
>>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>>> your first post.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> [email protected] <javascript:>
>>> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>.
>>> 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 [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
