Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive (was Re: [Proposal] Simplified 'ns' declaration)

[Lee Spector]

On Aug 6, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Curtis Summers wrote:

> I agree that wildcards make it "easy" (in the nearness sense), but from a 
> long-term maintainability standpoint, I'd prefer to have explicit imports as 
> is.  When I'm reading your code a year from now and need to look-up the docs 
> on a class, wildcards make me (and anyone else in the future) have to do that 
> look-up every time.  It's almost the same argument as to why (:use) is a bad 
> idea--you're dumping a bunch of symbols into your namespace.  So, you're 
> trading some upfront ease for some long-term simplicity.

This makes perfect sense if long-term maintainability is one of your higher 
priorities, which it certainly should be in many programming contexts. But not 
in many others. 

I do realize that many (most?) programmers spend lots (most?) of their time 
reading and maintaining code rather than writing original code. But not every 
programmer is "most" programmers :-). For me and I suspect many other 
researchers/teachers/students/artists/etc. upfront ease is really valuable and 
in fact crucial, and I can worry about long-term maintainability if/when that 
becomes a relevant concern. If I have an idea then I want to try it out ASAP by 
writing just the code I need to try it out, and it's a total drag when a 
language/environment makes me engage in a time-consuming and distracting 
bureaucratic process -- doing stuff that the system could really do for me -- 
on the way to expressing and trying my idea. If something works well, and I 
want to build on it and/or share it, then yes, I should re-engineer it for 
readability and maintainability. But that doesn't mean I want to -- or should 
have to -- jump through lots of hoops to play with ideas in the first place.

FWIW if you find my perspective here to be crazy I think that it's close in 
some ways to ideas that Paul Graham has expressed much better in some of his 
essays about Lisp, language design and programming methodology 
(http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html --  mostly the ones near the bottom of 
the list).

In other words, "don't use wildcards" may be an excellent rule for programmers 
in many contexts, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea for a language to 
impose it on everybody all of the time. And more generally, it's probably not a 
good idea to impose rules on all users of a language just because they're good 
rules for some/most programmers to follow some/most of the time.

 -Lee

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Greg]

> Struggling a bit. Moving the keywords to the end of the vector rather
> than the beginning? This reduces complexity?

I changed the syntax a bit since posting that, please have a look at the 
"[Proposal] Simplified 'ns' declaration" thread.

- Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with 
the NSA.

On Aug 6, 2013, at 7:22 AM, phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord) wrote:

> 
> 
> Struggling a bit. Moving the keywords to the end of the vector rather
> than the beginning? This reduces complexity?
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> Greg  writes:
> 
>> Looking at it again, we don't even need an explicit :require anymore:
>> 
>> (ns one.fresh-server
>>  "optional doc string goes here"
>>  [clojure.core :refer-except [ancestors printf]]
>>  [core.matrix :refer :all]
>>  [ring.adapter.jetty :refer [run-jetty]]
>>  [ring.middleware.file :refer [wrap-file]]
>>  [ring.middleware.file-info :refer [wrap-file-info]]
>>  [ring.middleware.stacktrace :refer [wrap-stacktrace]]
>>  [ring.util.response :refer [file-response]]
>>  [one.reload :as-ns]
>>  [one.middleware :as-ns]
>>  [net.cgrand.enlive-html :as html]
>>  [org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolver :as-class] 
>>  [java.io.File :as-class])
>> 
>> - Greg
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phillip Lord]

Struggling a bit. Moving the keywords to the end of the vector rather
than the beginning? This reduces complexity?

Phil


Greg  writes:

> Looking at it again, we don't even need an explicit :require anymore:
>
> (ns one.fresh-server
>   "optional doc string goes here"
>   [clojure.core :refer-except [ancestors printf]]
>   [core.matrix :refer :all]
>   [ring.adapter.jetty :refer [run-jetty]]
>   [ring.middleware.file :refer [wrap-file]]
>   [ring.middleware.file-info :refer [wrap-file-info]]
>   [ring.middleware.stacktrace :refer [wrap-stacktrace]]
>   [ring.util.response :refer [file-response]]
>   [one.reload :as-ns]
>   [one.middleware :as-ns]
>   [net.cgrand.enlive-html :as html]
>   [org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolver :as-class] 
>   [java.io.File :as-class])
>
> - Greg

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

I agree on this, just started to replace some :use by refer all and I have to
maintain the convention to place these at the end of the :require list
otherwise they get obfuscated if they end up in the middle.
There are only one or two per name space and we can have six to a dozen
required name spaces with aliases in our name spaces.

:use is much more obvious. we usually place them after the :require section and 
they
can not be missed by a reader. 

I can live with this but not really convinced that it improves readability.
Still debatable.

Luc.


> I find that having both `:use` and `:require` in my `ns` declarations can, 
> with a little judicious formatting, communicate something about which 
> packages are core and which are peripheral. Having to obfuscate that 
> distinction with a `:refer :all` tacked - in a visually obscure way - onto 
> `:require` forms would make me sad. Not wildly sad, but wistfully sad that 
> people would prefer a breaking change to simply avoiding something they don't 
> want to use.
> 
> Or:
> 
> On Aug 5, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Lee Spector  wrote:
> 
> > My point is just that the needs and priorities are diverse, and I wish 
> > people wouldn't be so enthusiastic about deprecating features that are 
> > valued by others in the community.
> 
> 
> Latest book: /Functional Programming for the Object-Oriented Programmer/
> https://leanpub.com/fp-oo
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
--
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Brian Marick]

I find that having both `:use` and `:require` in my `ns` declarations can, with 
a little judicious formatting, communicate something about which packages are 
core and which are peripheral. Having to obfuscate that distinction with a 
`:refer :all` tacked - in a visually obscure way - onto `:require` forms would 
make me sad. Not wildly sad, but wistfully sad that people would prefer a 
breaking change to simply avoiding something they don't want to use.

Or:

On Aug 5, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Lee Spector  wrote:

> My point is just that the needs and priorities are diverse, and I wish people 
> wouldn't be so enthusiastic about deprecating features that are valued by 
> others in the community.


Latest book: /Functional Programming for the Object-Oriented Programmer/
https://leanpub.com/fp-oo

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Lee Spector]

On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Mikera wrote:

> On Monday, 5 August 2013 11:35:22 UTC+1, Phillip Lord wrote:
> Anthony Grimes  writes: 
> > I can't think of a single good reason to not deprecate :use. :require can 
> > do everything :use could do now. 
> 
> Wait for it, wait for it 
> 
> > This isn't about whether or not (:use ..) without :only is bad. I'd go as 
> > far as to say that outside of test files (and sometimes not even those) and 
> > repl sessions, :use without :only is objectively bad. 
> 
> Yeah, you see, you can think of a single good reason, although you then 
> contradict yourself just to make it clear that it's not the case. 
> 
> I mean, is there really any good reason why namespace qualifing 
> "deftest" should be necessary. Reason -- it's familiar and there are not 
> that many functions in clojure.test. 
> 
> Another good reason, I have given before. I have written hundreds of 
> lines of code, with *no* calls at all to clojure.core, and lots to my 
> own library. Why under these circumstances is using clojure.core by 
> default and requiring my own library conducive to clear code? 

I think that these are good points and that there are indeed good reasons to 
keep :use or something with equivalent functionality and conciseness (which, as 
far as I can tell, :require :use :all doesn't quite deliver).

More generally, I think we should keep in mind that different Clojure 
programmers work in different programming contexts with different needs and 
priorities.

In my own context it'd actually be best to be able to say (ns foo 
:use-whatever-you-need) and leave it to the system to find things and tell me 
if there are conflicts.

Yes, that would be insane in some contexts, and if I used this thing and then 
wanted to port my code to some other context, like controlling a nuclear power 
plant, then I'd want a utility function something like 
print-explicit-ns-declaration-for-everything-you-need, which I could use to 
produce the mess that I'd then substitute for the concise thing before it goes 
into production, so I could make sure that all of the references were really 
correct, etc.

I don't expect everyone to think this is a good idea in their programming 
contexts, but from where I sit it would really be fantastic. I also don't 
expect anyone to implement this unless they have similar needs and interests 
and time, and I don't expect Clojure to be changed to support anything like 
this. My point is just that the needs and priorities are diverse, and I wish 
people wouldn't be so enthusiastic about deprecating features that are valued 
by others in the community.

 -Lee

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Lee Spector]

On Aug 5, 2013, at 4:40 AM, Korny Sietsma wrote:
> 
> 3. Use ":refer :all". It's perfectly fine, IMHO, when used responsibly.

I agree in principle, but as I mentioned earlier in a related thread, when I 
actually tried to convert my :use instances to :require :refer :all I learned 
(I think!) that this cannot be done without substantially increasing the size 
of the ns declaration.

The problem is that :use allows one to list a bunch of namespaces in one 
declaration reasonably concisely, as in:

(ns use2require.core
   (:use [use2require myfns yourfns]))

while :require :refer :all requires a separate entry (and a separate :refer 
:all) for each namespace, as in:

(ns use2require.core
   (:require [use2require.myfns :refer :all]
 [use2require.yourfns :refer :all]))

or

(ns use2require.core
   (:require [use2require [myfns :refer :all]
  [yourfns :refer :all]]))

Of course it's not a big deal with only two namespaces, but if you have dozens 
then this would be a real escalation in the size of the ns declaration.

Or am I missing something, and maybe there's a more concise way to use :require 
:refer :all that approximates the amount of code required for :use?

FYI the thread in which I previously posted this, and on which several others 
had comments, can be found at:

http://grokbase.com/t/gg/clojure/137v769emd/help-actually-changing-use-to-require-refer-all
 

If I haven't missed something then I'd advocate for an enhancement to :require 
:refer :all that fixes this OR the retention of :use.

 -Lee

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Greg]

Looking at it again, we don't even need an explicit :require anymore:

(ns one.fresh-server
  "optional doc string goes here"
  [clojure.core :refer-except [ancestors printf]]
  [core.matrix :refer :all]
  [ring.adapter.jetty :refer [run-jetty]]
  [ring.middleware.file :refer [wrap-file]]
  [ring.middleware.file-info :refer [wrap-file-info]]
  [ring.middleware.stacktrace :refer [wrap-stacktrace]]
  [ring.util.response :refer [file-response]]
  [one.reload :as-ns]
  [one.middleware :as-ns]
  [net.cgrand.enlive-html :as html]
  [org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolver :as-class] 
  [java.io.File :as-class])

- Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with 
the NSA.

On Aug 5, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Greg  wrote:

> * That email was just an idea to explore, not perfection.
> 
> Also, this is a mistake:
> 
>  (:require [clojure.core :refer [ancestors printf]]
> 
> Should read something like:
> 
>  (:require [clojure.core :refer-except [ancestors printf]]
> 
> - Greg
> 
> --
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> with the NSA.
> 
> On Aug 5, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Greg  wrote:
> 
>> This email contains a proposal for a way to get rid of at-least the 
>> following forms from the (ns) declaration:
>> 
>> - :refer-clojure
>> - :use
>> - :import
>> 
>> See below...
>> 
>>> The namespace declaration is too complex. The existence of ":use" is not
>>> what causes this.
>> 
>> 
>> I agree that it is not the *sole* cause, but I do believe that it is a 
>> significant part of the problem.
>> 
>>> can you please therefore explain why you think a breaking change
>>> to ns is a good thing to remove something that we are still going to be
>>> able to do, but in a more verbose way.
>> 
>> The 'ns' declaration is complex because there are too many ways to do 
>> essentially the same thing. "use" is one of those ways that is completely 
>> unnecessary and creates unnecessary complexity.
>> 
>> Clojure's documentation also contributes to this problem, but in some ways 
>> it's a victim of the poor design of the 'ns' declaration. Just look at this 
>> monster:
>> 
>> user=> (doc ns)
>> -
>> clojure.core/ns
>> ([name docstring? attr-map? references*])
>> Macro
>>   Sets *ns* to the namespace named by name (unevaluated), creating it
>>   if needed.  references can be zero or more of: (:refer-clojure ...)
>>   (:require ...) (:use ...) (:import ...) (:load ...) (:gen-class)
>>   with the syntax of refer-clojure/require/use/import/load/gen-class
>>   respectively, except the arguments are unevaluated and need not be
>>   quoted. (:gen-class ...), when supplied, defaults to :name
>>   corresponding to the ns name, :main true, :impl-ns same as ns, and
>>   :init-impl-ns true. All options of gen-class are
>>   supported. The :gen-class directive is ignored when not
>>   compiling. If :gen-class is not supplied, when compiled only an
>>   nsname__init.class will be generated. If :refer-clojure is not used, a
>>   default (refer 'clojure) is used.  Use of ns is preferred to
>>   individual calls to in-ns/require/use/import:
>> 
>>   (ns foo.bar
>> (:refer-clojure :exclude [ancestors printf])
>> (:require (clojure.contrib sql combinatorics))
>> (:use (my.lib this that))
>> (:import (java.util Date Timer Random)
>>  (java.sql Connection Statement)))
>> 
>> 
>> The above does not explain completely how to use 'ns'. You have to read the 
>> documentation for the syntax of all of the other forms its supports.
>> 
>> Deprecating :use would be a significant step in reducing the complexity of 
>> the 'ns' declaration, and improving the readability of Clojure's code. It 
>> would be one less piece to the monster.
>> 
>> There's a great quote by I don't remember who (Apple-related?), that to 
>> create something truly great, you have to keep removing all the unnecessary 
>> bits till there's nothing unnecessary left to remove. Something like that 
>> (if anyone knows the quote I'm talking about, please share).
>> 
>> This complexity isn't necessary.
>> 
>> Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't see why with a little bit of compiler 
>> intelligence, we can't convert this:
>> 
>> (ns one.fresh-server
>>   (:refer-clojure :exclude [ancestors printf])
>>   (:use core.matrix
>> [ring.adapter.jetty :only (run-jetty)]
>> [ring.middleware.file :only (wrap-file)]
>> [ring.middleware.file-info :only (wrap-file-info)]
>> [ring.middleware.stacktrace :only (wrap-stacktrace)]
>> [ring.util.response :only (file-response)])
>>   (:require [one.reload :as reload]
>> [one.middleware :as middleware]
>> [net.cgrand.enlive-html :as html])
>>   (:import (org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver ArtifactResolver)
>>(java.io File
>> 
>> Into this:
>> 
>> (ns one.fresh-server
>>   (:require [clojure.core :refer [ancestors printf]]
>> [core.matrix :refer :all

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Greg]

* That email was just an idea to explore, not perfection.

Also, this is a mistake:

 (:require [clojure.core :refer [ancestors printf]]

Should read something like:

 (:require [clojure.core :refer-except [ancestors printf]]

- Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with 
the NSA.

On Aug 5, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Greg  wrote:

> This email contains a proposal for a way to get rid of at-least the following 
> forms from the (ns) declaration:
> 
> - :refer-clojure
> - :use
> - :import
> 
> See below...
> 
>> The namespace declaration is too complex. The existence of ":use" is not
>> what causes this.
> 
> 
> I agree that it is not the *sole* cause, but I do believe that it is a 
> significant part of the problem.
> 
>> can you please therefore explain why you think a breaking change
>> to ns is a good thing to remove something that we are still going to be
>> able to do, but in a more verbose way.
> 
> The 'ns' declaration is complex because there are too many ways to do 
> essentially the same thing. "use" is one of those ways that is completely 
> unnecessary and creates unnecessary complexity.
> 
> Clojure's documentation also contributes to this problem, but in some ways 
> it's a victim of the poor design of the 'ns' declaration. Just look at this 
> monster:
> 
> user=> (doc ns)
> -
> clojure.core/ns
> ([name docstring? attr-map? references*])
> Macro
>   Sets *ns* to the namespace named by name (unevaluated), creating it
>   if needed.  references can be zero or more of: (:refer-clojure ...)
>   (:require ...) (:use ...) (:import ...) (:load ...) (:gen-class)
>   with the syntax of refer-clojure/require/use/import/load/gen-class
>   respectively, except the arguments are unevaluated and need not be
>   quoted. (:gen-class ...), when supplied, defaults to :name
>   corresponding to the ns name, :main true, :impl-ns same as ns, and
>   :init-impl-ns true. All options of gen-class are
>   supported. The :gen-class directive is ignored when not
>   compiling. If :gen-class is not supplied, when compiled only an
>   nsname__init.class will be generated. If :refer-clojure is not used, a
>   default (refer 'clojure) is used.  Use of ns is preferred to
>   individual calls to in-ns/require/use/import:
> 
>   (ns foo.bar
> (:refer-clojure :exclude [ancestors printf])
> (:require (clojure.contrib sql combinatorics))
> (:use (my.lib this that))
> (:import (java.util Date Timer Random)
>  (java.sql Connection Statement)))
> 
> 
> The above does not explain completely how to use 'ns'. You have to read the 
> documentation for the syntax of all of the other forms its supports.
> 
> Deprecating :use would be a significant step in reducing the complexity of 
> the 'ns' declaration, and improving the readability of Clojure's code. It 
> would be one less piece to the monster.
> 
> There's a great quote by I don't remember who (Apple-related?), that to 
> create something truly great, you have to keep removing all the unnecessary 
> bits till there's nothing unnecessary left to remove. Something like that (if 
> anyone knows the quote I'm talking about, please share).
> 
> This complexity isn't necessary.
> 
> Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't see why with a little bit of compiler 
> intelligence, we can't convert this:
> 
> (ns one.fresh-server
>   (:refer-clojure :exclude [ancestors printf])
>   (:use core.matrix
> [ring.adapter.jetty :only (run-jetty)]
> [ring.middleware.file :only (wrap-file)]
> [ring.middleware.file-info :only (wrap-file-info)]
> [ring.middleware.stacktrace :only (wrap-stacktrace)]
> [ring.util.response :only (file-response)])
>   (:require [one.reload :as reload]
> [one.middleware :as middleware]
> [net.cgrand.enlive-html :as html])
>   (:import (org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver ArtifactResolver)
>(java.io File
> 
> Into this:
> 
> (ns one.fresh-server
>   (:require [clojure.core :refer [ancestors printf]]
> [core.matrix :refer :all]
> [ring.adapter.jetty :refer [run-jetty]]
> [ring.middleware.file :refer [wrap-file]]
> [ring.middleware.file-info :refer [wrap-file-info]]
> [ring.middleware.stacktrace :refer [wrap-stacktrace]]
> [ring.util.response :refer [file-response]]
> [one.reload :as-ns]
> [one.middleware :as-ns]
> [net.cgrand.enlive-html :as html]
> [org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolver :as-class] 
> [java.io.File :as-class]))
> 
> Ta da!
> 
> There we've removed the unnecessary :use, :import, and :refer-clojure forms, 
> and added :as-ns and :as-class shortcuts. Require now supports both Java 
> Classes and Clojure Namespaces.
> 
> We've removed practically all the complexity! The only complexity remaining 
> are the keyword-options to available in the :require clauses, bu

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Greg]

This email contains a proposal for a way to get rid of at-least the following 
forms from the (ns) declaration:

- :refer-clojure
- :use
- :import

See below...

> The namespace declaration is too complex. The existence of ":use" is not
> what causes this.


I agree that it is not the *sole* cause, but I do believe that it is a 
significant part of the problem.

> can you please therefore explain why you think a breaking change
> to ns is a good thing to remove something that we are still going to be
> able to do, but in a more verbose way.

The 'ns' declaration is complex because there are too many ways to do 
essentially the same thing. "use" is one of those ways that is completely 
unnecessary and creates unnecessary complexity.

Clojure's documentation also contributes to this problem, but in some ways it's 
a victim of the poor design of the 'ns' declaration. Just look at this monster:

user=> (doc ns)
-
clojure.core/ns
([name docstring? attr-map? references*])
Macro
  Sets *ns* to the namespace named by name (unevaluated), creating it
  if needed.  references can be zero or more of: (:refer-clojure ...)
  (:require ...) (:use ...) (:import ...) (:load ...) (:gen-class)
  with the syntax of refer-clojure/require/use/import/load/gen-class
  respectively, except the arguments are unevaluated and need not be
  quoted. (:gen-class ...), when supplied, defaults to :name
  corresponding to the ns name, :main true, :impl-ns same as ns, and
  :init-impl-ns true. All options of gen-class are
  supported. The :gen-class directive is ignored when not
  compiling. If :gen-class is not supplied, when compiled only an
  nsname__init.class will be generated. If :refer-clojure is not used, a
  default (refer 'clojure) is used.  Use of ns is preferred to
  individual calls to in-ns/require/use/import:

  (ns foo.bar
(:refer-clojure :exclude [ancestors printf])
(:require (clojure.contrib sql combinatorics))
(:use (my.lib this that))
(:import (java.util Date Timer Random)
 (java.sql Connection Statement)))


The above does not explain completely how to use 'ns'. You have to read the 
documentation for the syntax of all of the other forms its supports.

Deprecating :use would be a significant step in reducing the complexity of the 
'ns' declaration, and improving the readability of Clojure's code. It would be 
one less piece to the monster.

There's a great quote by I don't remember who (Apple-related?), that to create 
something truly great, you have to keep removing all the unnecessary bits till 
there's nothing unnecessary left to remove. Something like that (if anyone 
knows the quote I'm talking about, please share).

This complexity isn't necessary.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't see why with a little bit of compiler 
intelligence, we can't convert this:

(ns one.fresh-server
  (:refer-clojure :exclude [ancestors printf])
  (:use core.matrix
[ring.adapter.jetty :only (run-jetty)]
[ring.middleware.file :only (wrap-file)]
[ring.middleware.file-info :only (wrap-file-info)]
[ring.middleware.stacktrace :only (wrap-stacktrace)]
[ring.util.response :only (file-response)])
  (:require [one.reload :as reload]
[one.middleware :as middleware]
[net.cgrand.enlive-html :as html])
  (:import (org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver ArtifactResolver)
   (java.io File

Into this:

(ns one.fresh-server
  (:require [clojure.core :refer [ancestors printf]]
[core.matrix :refer :all]
[ring.adapter.jetty :refer [run-jetty]]
[ring.middleware.file :refer [wrap-file]]
[ring.middleware.file-info :refer [wrap-file-info]]
[ring.middleware.stacktrace :refer [wrap-stacktrace]]
[ring.util.response :refer [file-response]]
[one.reload :as-ns]
[one.middleware :as-ns]
[net.cgrand.enlive-html :as html]
[org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.ArtifactResolver :as-class] 
[java.io.File :as-class]))

Ta da!

There we've removed the unnecessary :use, :import, and :refer-clojure forms, 
and added :as-ns and :as-class shortcuts. Require now supports both Java 
Classes and Clojure Namespaces.

We've removed practically all the complexity! The only complexity remaining are 
the keyword-options to available in the :require clauses, but we already had 
those before.

> Please also explain at the same time, why (use 'core.matrix) remains
> clear and why this should not change to "(require 'core.matrix :refer
> :all)".

I must have missed this part of the thread. I did not say it shouldn't maybe 
someone else did. I'm for deprecating "use" completely, while retaining its 
abilities through "require".

- Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with 
the NSA.

On Aug 5, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Phillip Lord  wrote:

> Greg  writes:
>>> It's pretty ugly to use aliases for numeric

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phillip Lord]

Greg  writes:
>> It's pretty ugly to use aliases for numerical code, e.g. with core.matrix, 
>> e.g.
>
> Agreed. It's nice that :require :refer :all is available for such instances, 
> isn't it?

Which leads to the crux of the question.

Given that the functionality is there, and that you agree that it is
useful, can you please therefore explain why you think a breaking change
to ns is a good thing to remove something that we are still going to be
able to do, but in a more verbose way.

Please also explain at the same time, why (use 'core.matrix) remains
clear and why this should not change to "(require 'core.matrix :refer
:all)".


The namespace declaration is too complex. The existence of ":use" is not
what causes this.

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
--- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Greg]

>> It's pretty ugly to use aliases for numerical code, e.g. with core.matrix, 
>> e.g.
> 
> Agreed. It's nice that :require :refer :all is available for such instances, 
> isn't it?

* Or for the more gentlemanly and considerate among us, just (:require ... 
:refer [+ - / *]).

-Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with 
the NSA.

On Aug 5, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Greg  wrote:

>> It's pretty ugly to use aliases for numerical code, e.g. with core.matrix, 
>> e.g.
> 
> Agreed. It's nice that :require :refer :all is available for such instances, 
> isn't it?
> 
> -Greg
> 
> --
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> with the NSA.
> 
> On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Mikera  wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, 5 August 2013 09:50:34 UTC+1, Steven Degutis wrote:
>> The only time I've seen :as lead to ugly code was when it was in a DSL that 
>> would probably have been nicer to use if it was a data-based DSL like Hiccup 
>> rather than code-based.
>> 
>> It's pretty ugly to use aliases for numerical code, e.g. with core.matrix, 
>> e.g.
>> 
>> (mat/dot (ops/+ [1 2 3] 1) (ops/- [1 2 3] 1))
>> 
>> vs:
>> 
>> (dot (+ [1 2 3] 1) (- [1 2 3] 1))
>> 
>> -- 
>> -- 
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Greg]

> It's pretty ugly to use aliases for numerical code, e.g. with core.matrix, 
> e.g.

Agreed. It's nice that :require :refer :all is available for such instances, 
isn't it?

-Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with 
the NSA.

On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Mikera  wrote:

> On Monday, 5 August 2013 09:50:34 UTC+1, Steven Degutis wrote:
> The only time I've seen :as lead to ugly code was when it was in a DSL that 
> would probably have been nicer to use if it was a data-based DSL like Hiccup 
> rather than code-based.
> 
> It's pretty ugly to use aliases for numerical code, e.g. with core.matrix, 
> e.g.
> 
> (mat/dot (ops/+ [1 2 3] 1) (ops/- [1 2 3] 1))
> 
> vs:
> 
> (dot (+ [1 2 3] 1) (- [1 2 3] 1))
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Stefan Kamphausen]

On Monday, August 5, 2013 2:13:02 PM UTC+2, Mikera wrote:
>
>
> To me the things that make Clojure namespace handling a nightmare for 
> beginners are:
> - Bad error messages (no.1 problem!)
> - Confusion with keywords vs. symbols (why ":use" in ns declarations vs 
> "use" at the repl?)
> - Confusion about quoting and when / where it is needed (again compared 
> with "use" at the REPL)
> - Confusion about when you should use lists vs. vectors vs symbols etc., 
> and how this interacts with the extra magic syntax like ":as"
> - Problems with circular loading of namespaces (and how this affects your 
> code structure)
>

well summarized. 

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Mikera]

On Monday, 5 August 2013 09:50:34 UTC+1, Steven Degutis wrote:

> The only time I've seen :as lead to ugly code was when it was in a DSL 
> that would probably have been nicer to use if it was a data-based DSL like 
> Hiccup rather than code-based.
>

It's pretty ugly to use aliases for numerical code, e.g. with core.matrix, 
e.g.

(mat/dot (ops/+ [1 2 3] 1) (ops/- [1 2 3] 1))

vs:

(dot (+ [1 2 3] 1) (- [1 2 3] 1))

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Mikera]

On Monday, 5 August 2013 11:35:22 UTC+1, Phillip Lord wrote:

> Anthony Grimes > writes: 
> > I can't think of a single good reason to not deprecate :use. :require 
> can 
> > do everything :use could do now. 
>
> Wait for it, wait for it 
>
> > This isn't about whether or not (:use ..) without :only is bad. I'd go 
> as 
> > far as to say that outside of test files (and sometimes not even those) 
> and 
> > repl sessions, :use without :only is objectively bad. 
>
> Yeah, you see, you can think of a single good reason, although you then 
> contradict yourself just to make it clear that it's not the case. 
>
> I mean, is there really any good reason why namespace qualifing 
> "deftest" should be necessary. Reason -- it's familiar and there are not 
> that many functions in clojure.test. 
>
> Another good reason, I have given before. I have written hundreds of 
> lines of code, with *no* calls at all to clojure.core, and lots to my 
> own library. Why under these circumstances is using clojure.core by 
> default and requiring my own library conducive to clear code? 
>
>
> > Not much justification you can give me that'll make it unbad. But that 
> > isn't what this is about. Deprecating :use doesn't make doing the 
> > aforementioned bad thing impossible, and :refer :all was added to 
> > require for that specific purpose. :require still lets you do bad 
> > things if you really want to. All we're doing by deprecating :use is 
> > removing cruft and making things less complicated for new people. We 
> > currently have two things, and one of them does all the things the 
> > other one does and more, yet we still have both of them. 
>
>
> Essentially, there are four things that can be done here. You can make 
> a function available (require), you make it usable by it's name (use), 
> you can make it available by it's namespace (refer), or you can make it 
> available to another name (aliasing). 
>

+1 to this - different operations deserve different names.

I'd add that there are many situations, especially when using DSLs, where 
you don't really want your code cluttered with aliases. It's just 
unnecessary noise - what you want to do is set up your namespace and have 
the relevant functions directly available as appropriate for you domain.

Aliases can also get problematic when you have to manage code that starts 
to have multiple aliases defined differently in different places. It makes 
refactoring / transferring code between namespaces much more fiddly, 
especially when code that used one alias in one namespace needs to be 
converted to use a different alias in another namespaces (also, aliases can 
collide too.).

If you don't like"use" then just don't put it in your own code. But 
removing helpful existing functionality that many people have in their code 
bases as a breaking change just because some other people don't want to use 
it is bad language design IMHO.
 

>
> The changes suggested do nothing toward reducing these things. As you 
> say, you will still able to do all of them. New people will find be 
> introduced to "use" in the repl and find no equivalent in the ns 
> directive. And lots of people will have to replace ":use" directives 
> with something else which does the same, but is longer. 

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Mikera]

On Monday, 5 August 2013 09:40:04 UTC+1, Korny wrote:

> Agree that :use should be deprecated, mostly as it's quite a barrier to 
> folks new to the language that you need to know 3 different parts of the ns 
> macro before you start.
>
I really don't think :use was ever a significant problem for newcomers: 
it's fairly obvious what it does if you come from another language that has 
similar package-importing constructs. The majority of other languages 
behave more like "use" than "require".

To me the things that make Clojure namespace handling a nightmare for 
beginners are:
- Bad error messages (no.1 problem!)
- Confusion with keywords vs. symbols (why ":use" in ns declarations vs 
"use" at the repl?)
- Confusion about quoting and when / where it is needed (again compared 
with "use" at the REPL)
- Confusion about when you should use lists vs. vectors vs symbols etc., 
and how this interacts with the extra magic syntax like ":as"
- Problems with circular loading of namespaces (and how this affects your 
code structure)
 
I count myself as someone who was quite confused by all these things 
initially, but I never had a problem understanding ":use" as a concept.

>  However "objectively bad" is strong language indeed. ":refer :all" is 
> vital anywhere you want a DSL - if using something like Korma, for example, 
> you have 3 options :
>
> 1. Use :as and fill your code with ugly things like "(k/select user 
> (k/where {:name [k/like " fred"]}) 
>
> 2. Use ":refer [select where like..." and almost every other symbol in 
> Korma - might be ok if you have a perfect IDE, but still needlessly verbose 
>
> 3. Use ":refer :all". It's perfectly fine, IMHO, when used responsibly.
>
Absolutely agreed: method 3 is a decent approach for DSL scenarios. 

This is why I am in favour of keeping ":use" for such situations. There's 
no value in making a breaking change that removes a helpful syntactical 
feature (aside from wasting the time of people who like ":use", it will 
just make namespaces even more verbose and it will invalidate a lot of 
tutorials / example code which I don't think is very welcoming to newcomers 
either).

For example, which is easier to explain to a newcomer:

(ns foo
  (:use my.dsl)
  (:require [some.library :as bar])
  (:import baz.java.Class))

(ns foo
  (:require [my.dsl :refer :all])
  (:require [some.library :as bar])
  (:import baz.java.Class))

The second version is more verbose, has more "magic keywords" (count 
them!), and is IMHO somewhat confusing in the sense that you are using 
":require" to do two very different things. ":use" is a simpler and more 
concise syntax for what the ns declarations above are trying to express 
(and has the advantage of consistency with "use" at the REPL).

Reductio ad absurdum: If we take the logic of deprecating ":use" and 
overloading ":require" to its logical conclusion, surely we should also 
deprecate ":import" and replace it with something like (:require 
[:java-package baz.java :java-classes [Class]])? Replacing ":import" in 
this way would also simplify ns declarations and make things easier for 
newcomers, right? :-)
 

>  - Korny 
>  On 5 Aug 2013 09:09, "Anthony Grimes" > 
> wrote:
>
>> I can't think of a single good reason to not deprecate :use. :require can 
>> do everything :use could do now.
>>
>> This isn't about whether or not (:use ..) without :only is bad. I'd go as 
>> far as to say that outside of test files (and sometimes not even those) and 
>> repl sessions, :use without :only is objectively bad. Not much 
>> justification you can give me that'll make it unbad. But that isn't what 
>> this is about. Deprecating :use doesn't make doing the aforementioned bad 
>> thing impossible, and :refer :all was added to require for that specific 
>> purpose. :require still lets you do bad things if you really want to. All 
>> we're doing by deprecating :use is removing cruft and making things less 
>> complicated for new people. We currently have two things, and one of them 
>> does all the things the other one does and more, yet we still have both of 
>> them.
>>
>> Just my $0.02.
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:50:50 AM UTC-7, Greg wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could 
>>> be mistaken. 
>>>
>>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has 
>>> too many ways of including/importing/**referencing/requiring/using 
>>> things: 
>>>
>>> http://blog.8thlight.com/**colin-jones/2010/12/05/**
>>> clojure-libs-and-namespaces-**require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>>  
>>>
>>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, 
>>> but it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>>>
>>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
>>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
>>> the use of :use? T

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phillip Lord]

Anthony Grimes  writes:
> I can't think of a single good reason to not deprecate :use. :require can 
> do everything :use could do now.

Wait for it, wait for it

> This isn't about whether or not (:use ..) without :only is bad. I'd go as 
> far as to say that outside of test files (and sometimes not even those) and 
> repl sessions, :use without :only is objectively bad. 

Yeah, you see, you can think of a single good reason, although you then
contradict yourself just to make it clear that it's not the case.

I mean, is there really any good reason why namespace qualifing
"deftest" should be necessary. Reason -- it's familiar and there are not
that many functions in clojure.test.

Another good reason, I have given before. I have written hundreds of
lines of code, with *no* calls at all to clojure.core, and lots to my
own library. Why under these circumstances is using clojure.core by
default and requiring my own library conducive to clear code?


> Not much justification you can give me that'll make it unbad. But that
> isn't what this is about. Deprecating :use doesn't make doing the
> aforementioned bad thing impossible, and :refer :all was added to
> require for that specific purpose. :require still lets you do bad
> things if you really want to. All we're doing by deprecating :use is
> removing cruft and making things less complicated for new people. We
> currently have two things, and one of them does all the things the
> other one does and more, yet we still have both of them.


Essentially, there are four things that can be done here. You can make
a function available (require), you make it usable by it's name (use),
you can make it available by it's namespace (refer), or you can make it
available to another name (aliasing).

The changes suggested do nothing toward reducing these things. As you
say, you will still able to do all of them. New people will find be
introduced to "use" in the repl and find no equivalent in the ns
directive. And lots of people will have to replace ":use" directives
with something else which does the same, but is longer.

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
--- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Steven Degutis]

The only time I've seen :as lead to ugly code was when it was in a DSL that
would probably have been nicer to use if it was a data-based DSL like
Hiccup rather than code-based.


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Korny Sietsma  wrote:

> Agree that :use should be deprecated, mostly as it's quite a barrier to
> folks new to the language that you need to know 3 different parts of the ns
> macro before you start.
>
> However "objectively bad" is strong language indeed. ":refer :all" is
> vital anywhere you want a DSL - if using something like Korma, for example,
> you have 3 options :
>
> 1. Use :as and fill your code with ugly things like "(k/select user
> (k/where {:name [k/like " fred"]})
>
> 2. Use ":refer [select where like..." and almost every other symbol in
> Korma - might be ok if you have a perfect IDE, but still needlessly verbose
>
> 3. Use ":refer :all". It's perfectly fine, IMHO, when used responsibly.
>
> - Korny
>  On 5 Aug 2013 09:09, "Anthony Grimes"  wrote:
>
>> I can't think of a single good reason to not deprecate :use. :require can
>> do everything :use could do now.
>>
>> This isn't about whether or not (:use ..) without :only is bad. I'd go as
>> far as to say that outside of test files (and sometimes not even those) and
>> repl sessions, :use without :only is objectively bad. Not much
>> justification you can give me that'll make it unbad. But that isn't what
>> this is about. Deprecating :use doesn't make doing the aforementioned bad
>> thing impossible, and :refer :all was added to require for that specific
>> purpose. :require still lets you do bad things if you really want to. All
>> we're doing by deprecating :use is removing cruft and making things less
>> complicated for new people. We currently have two things, and one of them
>> does all the things the other one does and more, yet we still have both of
>> them.
>>
>> Just my $0.02.
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:50:50 AM UTC-7, Greg wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could
>>> be mistaken.
>>>
>>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has
>>> too many ways of including/importing/**referencing/requiring/using
>>> things:
>>>
>>> http://blog.8thlight.com/**colin-jones/2010/12/05/**
>>> clojure-libs-and-namespaces-**require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>>
>>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
>>> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>>>
>>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use
>>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating
>>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it
>>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>>>
>>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
>>> that's not possible. :-\
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>> sharing with the NSA.
>>>
>>>  --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>  --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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 moder

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Korny Sietsma]

Agree that :use should be deprecated, mostly as it's quite a barrier to
folks new to the language that you need to know 3 different parts of the ns
macro before you start.

However "objectively bad" is strong language indeed. ":refer :all" is vital
anywhere you want a DSL - if using something like Korma, for example, you
have 3 options :

1. Use :as and fill your code with ugly things like "(k/select user
(k/where {:name [k/like " fred"]})

2. Use ":refer [select where like..." and almost every other symbol in
Korma - might be ok if you have a perfect IDE, but still needlessly verbose

3. Use ":refer :all". It's perfectly fine, IMHO, when used responsibly.

- Korny
 On 5 Aug 2013 09:09, "Anthony Grimes"  wrote:

> I can't think of a single good reason to not deprecate :use. :require can
> do everything :use could do now.
>
> This isn't about whether or not (:use ..) without :only is bad. I'd go as
> far as to say that outside of test files (and sometimes not even those) and
> repl sessions, :use without :only is objectively bad. Not much
> justification you can give me that'll make it unbad. But that isn't what
> this is about. Deprecating :use doesn't make doing the aforementioned bad
> thing impossible, and :refer :all was added to require for that specific
> purpose. :require still lets you do bad things if you really want to. All
> we're doing by deprecating :use is removing cruft and making things less
> complicated for new people. We currently have two things, and one of them
> does all the things the other one does and more, yet we still have both of
> them.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:50:50 AM UTC-7, Greg wrote:
>>
>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could
>> be mistaken.
>>
>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too
>> many ways of including/importing/**referencing/requiring/using things:
>>
>> http://blog.8thlight.com/**colin-jones/2010/12/05/**
>> clojure-libs-and-namespaces-**require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>
>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
>> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>>
>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use
>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating
>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it
>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>>
>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
>> that's not possible. :-\
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>>
>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies.
>>
>> --
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing
>> with the NSA.
>>
>>  --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Anthony Grimes]

I can't think of a single good reason to not deprecate :use. :require can 
do everything :use could do now.

This isn't about whether or not (:use ..) without :only is bad. I'd go as 
far as to say that outside of test files (and sometimes not even those) and 
repl sessions, :use without :only is objectively bad. Not much 
justification you can give me that'll make it unbad. But that isn't what 
this is about. Deprecating :use doesn't make doing the aforementioned bad 
thing impossible, and :refer :all was added to require for that specific 
purpose. :require still lets you do bad things if you really want to. All 
we're doing by deprecating :use is removing cruft and making things less 
complicated for new people. We currently have two things, and one of them 
does all the things the other one does and more, yet we still have both of 
them.

Just my $0.02.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:50:50 AM UTC-7, Greg wrote:
>
> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could be 
> mistaken. 
>
> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>
>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>  
>
> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, but 
> it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>
> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>
> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> that's not possible. :-\ 
>
> Thoughts? 
>
> Thanks, 
> Greg 
>
> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
>
> -- 
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> with the NSA. 
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Ye He]

What I mean is don't use it when you use :use.

Regards,
Ye He

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Takahiro Hozumi 
wrote:

> Hi Ye,
>> or at least *Do Not Use *those standard names*.*
> The following guide suggests the opposite.
> http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Library+Coding+Standards
>> Use good names, and don't be afraid to collide with names in other 
> namespaces. That's what the flexible namespace support is there for.
> Takahiro
> On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:25:34 AM UTC+9, Ye He wrote:
>>
>> Yesterday, I spent hours trying to figure out why some code didn't work. 
>> The code is like so:
>> (defn replace-symbol-in-ast-node [old new ast]
>>   (tree-replace (symbol old) (symbol new) ast))
>>
>> I use tree-replace directly like this:
>> (ast/tree-replace (symbol 'a) (symbol 'c) (ast/sexp->parsley '(+ a b)))
>>
>> I thought the result would the the same but I was wrong. After hours of 
>> thinking, I finally figured it out.
>> Guess what? The 'symbol' function in the first code snippet is not the 
>> standard 'symbol'. It actually is:
>> (defn symbol [sym]
>>   (make-node :atom (core/vector (name sym
>>
>> It's defined in another library. But I stupidly thought it was the 
>> standard 'symbol'.
>> Part of this was my fault, I guess. I shouldn't have taken it for granted 
>> and guessed its meaning. But who know? 
>> In my opinion if we use less :use, it would easier for others to read our 
>> code and less likely to misunderstand the meaning, or at least *Do Not 
>> Use *those standard names*.*
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:50:50 AM UTC+10, Greg wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could 
>>> be mistaken. 
>>>
>>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
>>> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>>>
>>>
>>> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>>  
>>>
>>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, 
>>> but it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>>>
>>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
>>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
>>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
>>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>>>
>>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
>>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
>>> that's not possible. :-\ 
>>>
>>> Thoughts? 
>>>
>>> Thanks, 
>>> Greg 
>>>
>>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
>>> with the NSA. 
>>>
>>>
> -- 
> -- 
> 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 a topic in the Google 
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/i2VzAlT6oqM/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

You did not get a warning that "symbol" was overriding the core symbol fn ?

Luc P.

> Yesterday, I spent hours trying to figure out why some code didn't work. 
> The code is like so:
> (defn replace-symbol-in-ast-node [old new ast]
>   (tree-replace (symbol old) (symbol new) ast))
> 
> I use tree-replace directly like this:
> (ast/tree-replace (symbol 'a) (symbol 'c) (ast/sexp->parsley '(+ a b)))
> 
> I thought the result would the the same but I was wrong. After hours of 
> thinking, I finally figured it out.
> Guess what? The 'symbol' function in the first code snippet is not the 
> standard 'symbol'. It actually is:
> (defn symbol [sym]
>   (make-node :atom (core/vector (name sym
> 
> It's defined in another library. But I stupidly thought it was the standard 
> 'symbol'.
> Part of this was my fault, I guess. I shouldn't have taken it for granted 
> and guessed its meaning. But who know? 
> In my opinion if we use less :use, it would easier for others to read our 
> code and less likely to misunderstand the meaning, or at least *Do Not Use 
> *those 
> standard names*.*
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:50:50 AM UTC+10, Greg wrote:
> >
> > I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could be 
> > mistaken. 
> >
> > From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> > many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
> >
> >
> > http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
> >  
> >
> > The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, but 
> > it also acknowledges their complexity. 
> >
> > Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> > can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
> > the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> > adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
> >
> > Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> > everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> > that's not possible. :-\ 
> >
> > Thoughts? 
> >
> > Thanks, 
> > Greg 
> >
> > P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
> >
> > -- 
> > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> > with the NSA. 
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
--
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Takahiro Hozumi]

Hi Ye,

> or at least *Do Not Use *those standard names*.*

The following guide suggests the opposite.

http://dev.clojure.org/display/community/Library+Coding+Standards
> Use good names, and don't be afraid to collide with names in other 
namespaces. That's what the flexible namespace support is there for.

Takahiro

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 11:25:34 AM UTC+9, Ye He wrote:
>
> Yesterday, I spent hours trying to figure out why some code didn't work. 
> The code is like so:
> (defn replace-symbol-in-ast-node [old new ast]
>   (tree-replace (symbol old) (symbol new) ast))
>
> I use tree-replace directly like this:
> (ast/tree-replace (symbol 'a) (symbol 'c) (ast/sexp->parsley '(+ a b)))
>
> I thought the result would the the same but I was wrong. After hours of 
> thinking, I finally figured it out.
> Guess what? The 'symbol' function in the first code snippet is not the 
> standard 'symbol'. It actually is:
> (defn symbol [sym]
>   (make-node :atom (core/vector (name sym
>
> It's defined in another library. But I stupidly thought it was the 
> standard 'symbol'.
> Part of this was my fault, I guess. I shouldn't have taken it for granted 
> and guessed its meaning. But who know? 
> In my opinion if we use less :use, it would easier for others to read our 
> code and less likely to misunderstand the meaning, or at least *Do Not 
> Use *those standard names*.*
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:50:50 AM UTC+10, Greg wrote:
>>
>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could 
>> be mistaken. 
>>
>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
>> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>>
>>
>> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>  
>>
>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, 
>> but it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>>
>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>>
>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
>> that's not possible. :-\ 
>>
>> Thoughts? 
>>
>> Thanks, 
>> Greg 
>>
>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
>>
>> -- 
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
>> with the NSA. 
>>
>>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Ye He]

Yesterday, I spent hours trying to figure out why some code didn't work. 
The code is like so:
(defn replace-symbol-in-ast-node [old new ast]
  (tree-replace (symbol old) (symbol new) ast))

I use tree-replace directly like this:
(ast/tree-replace (symbol 'a) (symbol 'c) (ast/sexp->parsley '(+ a b)))

I thought the result would the the same but I was wrong. After hours of 
thinking, I finally figured it out.
Guess what? The 'symbol' function in the first code snippet is not the 
standard 'symbol'. It actually is:
(defn symbol [sym]
  (make-node :atom (core/vector (name sym

It's defined in another library. But I stupidly thought it was the standard 
'symbol'.
Part of this was my fault, I guess. I shouldn't have taken it for granted 
and guessed its meaning. But who know? 
In my opinion if we use less :use, it would easier for others to read our 
code and less likely to misunderstand the meaning, or at least *Do Not Use 
*those 
standard names*.*


On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:50:50 AM UTC+10, Greg wrote:
>
> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could be 
> mistaken. 
>
> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>
>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>  
>
> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, but 
> it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>
> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>
> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> that's not possible. :-\ 
>
> Thoughts? 
>
> Thanks, 
> Greg 
>
> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
>
> -- 
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> with the NSA. 
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Colin Fleming]

>From another point of view, as a tool developer if you want to accurately
parse ns declarations it's extremely difficult. :use is a beast, and the
number of options you can potentially combine are crazy. This is mostly due
to the fact that :use combines what most people think of as :use and also
everything from require (which was a surprise to me). So all of these are
valid:

(ns test (:use [clojure.string :refer [trim] :only [split]]))
(ns test2 (:use [clojure.string :refer :all :only [split]]))
(ns test3 (:use [clojure.string :refer :all :exclude [split]]))
(ns test4 (:use [clojure.string :refer [trim] :exclude [trim]]))
(ns test5 (:use [clojure.string :as str :only [join] :refer [split]
:exclude [trim] :rename {reverse rev}]))

Anyone care to wager what those actually do without trawling through the
code? In fact, even if you trawl through the code it's far from trivial.
Those are just of the top of my head, I'm sure there are weirder cases.



On 27 July 2013 10:10, Softaddicts  wrote:

> I do the same but it's because of my age and failing memory,
> glad that some younger folks face the same issue :)
>
> Luc P.
>
>
> > On Friday, July 26, 2013 10:30:04 AM UTC-7, greenh wrote:
> > > Finally, with respect to the “it’s too hard for newcomers” line of >
> argumentation,
> > > my reaction is: this is silly.  Do you *really* want to optimize
> Clojure > for use by newcomers?
> > > The original complaint was not that it's too hard for newcomers, it
> was was > that Rich Hickey was saying every time he had to create a new
> namespace he > couldn't remember how it worked and had to go copy from an
> existing example.
> > > -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
> > --- > 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/groups/opt_out.
> > > > --
> Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

I do the same but it's because of my age and failing memory,
glad that some younger folks face the same issue :)

Luc P.


> On Friday, July 26, 2013 10:30:04 AM UTC-7, greenh wrote:
> > Finally, with respect to the “it’s too hard for newcomers” line of > 
> > argumentation,
> > my reaction is: this is silly.  Do you *really* want to optimize Clojure > 
> > for use by newcomers?
> > The original complaint was not that it's too hard for newcomers, it was was 
> > > that Rich Hickey was saying every time he had to create a new namespace 
> > he > couldn't remember how it worked and had to go copy from an existing 
> > example.
> > -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
> --- > 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/groups/opt_out.
> > > --
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phil Hagelberg]

On Friday, July 26, 2013 10:30:04 AM UTC-7, greenh wrote:
> Finally, with respect to the “it’s too hard for newcomers” line of 
argumentation,
> my reaction is: this is silly.  Do you *really* want to optimize Clojure 
for use by newcomers?

The original complaint was not that it's too hard for newcomers, it was was 
that Rich Hickey was saying every time he had to create a new namespace he 
couldn't remember how it worked and had to go copy from an existing example.

-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
--- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Gary Trakhman]

This post takes quite a lot of things to extremes, but I think the main
argument still stands.

We need good defaults, not to totally change clojure into a newbie-friendly
thing at the expense of what makes clojure special.  This proposed change
fixes a pervasive pain point in many codebases because :use is easy in the
small and complex in the large, and it does it by simply raising the
perceived cost of 'use' slightly.

We spent time at my company on our own internal style debate over this, and
I'm sure other companies do the same.  Any time I spend significant time in
a namespace, I move the code over to :require, so that's already
not-inconsequential effort that doesn't need to exist.

Advanced users are willing/able to do whatever it takes to make things
easier for themselves, adjust to change quickly, and are likely more vocal
and critical about change in the first place.  I think that the negative
impact of a change will always be a bit overblown.

I guess it comes down to whether the negative impact is outweighed by the
increase in clarity.  Negative impact is obvious and instant, clarity is
mostly invisible and its benefits are realized over time.

People need some kind of feedback, a change in core is far-reaching with
some downsides.


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:30 PM, greenh  wrote:

> A couple thoughts, my own 2-cents-worth.
>
> First, I think I’m seeing an entirely legitimate concern being expressed
> by some developers that :use complicates life in their shops. Contrariwise,
> there’s clearly a set of developers who are in environments where :use
> feels very natural, and is of considerable convenience.
>
> As someone who is generally in the latter situation, I have a hard time
> with notion of getting rid of :use, but I can equally well picture myself
> doing Clojure environments where the restriction was pertinent.  So, how
> about if there was a compiler option that caused :use to be flagged with a
> warning or error? I’d say that was entirely acceptable solution that kept
> everyone happy.
>
> In general: if you’re talking about expanding the existing functionality
> to help solve people’s problems, I’m all for it. If you’re talking about
> restricting existing functionality to require conformity with your
> particular vision, that’s a problem.
>
> BTW, if you insist on making the :use functionality substantially less
> convenient, well, I know how I respond to such things. I recall a saying
> from long ago in the Lisp community that “if you don’t like the syntax,
> write your own!”---and so I do. I’ve already dealt with several perceived
> nuisances in existing Clojure by writing and using my own macros. Coming up
> with a custom replacement for the ns macro feels a little challenging, but
> I dare say I’d rise to the occasion if need be. If that becomes common
> practice, I’d say you’ve won the conformity battle but lost the war. (Hey,
> maybe we should get rid of macros to prevent such heinous acts, eh? It
> worked for Java…)
>
> Next, there's an "I can't tell where identifiers come from" thought. Yeah,
> I've felt that pain, and as I've indicated, I'm situationally sympathetic.
> But here's a thought: how is this different from any programming language
> where one file/class/module/whatever can be included by another? Might
> there already be technology for dealing with it---even technology that
> doesn't involve manually qualifying every non-local identifier?
>
> Finally, with respect to the “it’s too hard for newcomers” line of
> argumentation, my reaction is: this is silly.  Do you *really* want to
> optimize Clojure for use by newcomers?  Assuming you managed such a
> thing, would the result still be useful to experienced programmers---who
> are, after all, are the main constituency for Clojure? Newcomers don’t tend
> to stay newcomers for very long, right?
>
> Similarly, with respect to the “ns is too complex” meme, my response is:
> gimme a break. It really isn’t all *that* complicated, and reducing its
> set of options by one isn’t going to change that very much. In the overall
> scheme of things involving functional programming in general and Clojure in
> particular, this tiny spec of complexity hardly signifies.
>
> Now, what *is *a problem is one of explanation---like, how to make
> newcomers aware of a good-enough set of recipes to get them going, or a
> lucid description of what the options actually are, and where they should
> be applied.
>
> So, here's a suggestion: improve the documentation!! Have you looked at
> the docstring associated with ns? Yeeesh!  It’s all proper and correct,
> and about as profoundly uninformative as can be. (I’ve been doing Clojure
> intensively for about three years now, and just now I had a hard time even
> parsing it.)
>
> In fact, I think I’d generalize on this, as a lot of the docstrings in
> core Clojure are, um, terse… so I’d suggest that if Clojure 2.0 is afoot,
> improving the documentation would be an excellent goal.
>
> FWIW...
>
>
>

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[greenh]

A couple thoughts, my own 2-cents-worth.

First, I think I’m seeing an entirely legitimate concern being expressed by 
some developers that :use complicates life in their shops. Contrariwise, 
there’s clearly a set of developers who are in environments where :use 
feels very natural, and is of considerable convenience. 

As someone who is generally in the latter situation, I have a hard time 
with notion of getting rid of :use, but I can equally well picture myself 
doing Clojure environments where the restriction was pertinent.  So, how 
about if there was a compiler option that caused :use to be flagged with a 
warning or error? I’d say that was entirely acceptable solution that kept 
everyone happy. 

In general: if you’re talking about expanding the existing functionality to 
help solve people’s problems, I’m all for it. If you’re talking about 
restricting existing functionality to require conformity with your 
particular vision, that’s a problem.

BTW, if you insist on making the :use functionality substantially less 
convenient, well, I know how I respond to such things. I recall a saying 
from long ago in the Lisp community that “if you don’t like the syntax, 
write your own!”---and so I do. I’ve already dealt with several perceived 
nuisances in existing Clojure by writing and using my own macros. Coming up 
with a custom replacement for the ns macro feels a little challenging, but 
I dare say I’d rise to the occasion if need be. If that becomes common 
practice, I’d say you’ve won the conformity battle but lost the war. (Hey, 
maybe we should get rid of macros to prevent such heinous acts, eh? It 
worked for Java…)

Next, there's an "I can't tell where identifiers come from" thought. Yeah, 
I've felt that pain, and as I've indicated, I'm situationally sympathetic. 
But here's a thought: how is this different from any programming language 
where one file/class/module/whatever can be included by another? Might 
there already be technology for dealing with it---even technology that 
doesn't involve manually qualifying every non-local identifier?

Finally, with respect to the “it’s too hard for newcomers” line of 
argumentation, my reaction is: this is silly.  Do you *really* want to 
optimize Clojure for use by newcomers?  Assuming you managed such a thing, 
would the result still be useful to experienced programmers---who are, 
after all, are the main constituency for Clojure? Newcomers don’t tend to 
stay newcomers for very long, right?

Similarly, with respect to the “ns is too complex” meme, my response is: 
gimme a break. It really isn’t all *that* complicated, and reducing its set 
of options by one isn’t going to change that very much. In the overall 
scheme of things involving functional programming in general and Clojure in 
particular, this tiny spec of complexity hardly signifies. 

Now, what *is *a problem is one of explanation---like, how to make 
newcomers aware of a good-enough set of recipes to get them going, or a 
lucid description of what the options actually are, and where they should 
be applied. 

So, here's a suggestion: improve the documentation!! Have you looked at the 
docstring associated with ns? Yeeesh!  It’s all proper and correct, and 
about as profoundly uninformative as can be. (I’ve been doing Clojure 
intensively for about three years now, and just now I had a hard time even 
parsing it.) 

In fact, I think I’d generalize on this, as a lot of the docstrings in core 
Clojure are, um, terse… so I’d suggest that if Clojure 2.0 is afoot, 
improving the documentation would be an excellent goal. 

FWIW...


Howard


-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phillip Lord]

Laurent PETIT  writes:
>> The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it
>> with "and" and "not".
>
> Except nobody complains about "or", "and" or "not" ;-)

Actually, they are a right pain when writing my library, because I
wanted to use them to mean something else. some was irritating for the
same reason.


>> And cause frustration for people who find typing
>>
>> (:require clojure.test :refer :all)
>>
>> when they used to type
>>
>> (:use clojure.test)
>
> Code is read more often than written.
> Clojure makes default choices "easy", and non default choices "harder"
> for a reason: to guide people.

And again, I an struggling to see when being able to write

(deftest hello 
  (is true))

is a bad thing. I agree, using many namespaces is problematic, I do
often use one.

>
> It's like the mantra "if you find it hard to write, you may be doing
> it wrong (though it's still possible to do)".
>
> Also, for the REPL, there will still be the (use 'clojure.tests) call
> that you can use in your REPL bootstrapping code.
>
>> To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an
>> implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration
>> to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things
>> simpler to me.
>
> I don't think I'm confused, AFAIC: I'm not even thinking from the
> implementation perspective, but from the consumer perspective.
> It's also psychological: if you remove :use, even at the cost of
> keeping :refer :all, that's one less top-level 'ns directive to
> remember.


I said the discussion was confused not you!

So far, I have see three main reasons for removing use.

1) It offends my idea of truth and beauty: only clojure.core should be
   unnamespaced. 

Counter argument 1: using deftest makes life a lot easier. And I have
files which have 100s of calls to a one namespace and none to
clojure.core. 

Counter argument 2: the functionality will remain anyway.

Counter argument 3: so, don't use it then.

2) ns is too complex

Counter Argument:

Yes, it is, and it does confuse newcomers. I got confused, not least
because it accepts both vectors and lists (so two syntaxes with no
difference AFAICT). So

(ns a 
 [:use b])

(ns a
 (:use b))

are the same.

It also has short cuts: so

 (:use [a.b.c]) is the same as 
 (:use [a.b c]), (use library "a.b.c")

 (:use [a.b c]) is different from 
 (:use [a b c]) (first is "use a.b.c" second is "use a.b and a.c").

It's got :as which means you need nesting. and you can combine this with
aliases. And I think you can drop the brackets so:

(ns a
  (:use [b]))

is the same as 

(ns a
  (:use b))

All of this remains. It's still going to be complex. 

Don't quote me on any of the statements made here; I was trying to do it
from memory to see if I remembered correctly.

3) Removing use will make things simpler

Counter Argument:

Only for people who don't use it, and they don't use it so who cares?
For people who do use it, we now have to do (:require x :refer :all)
instead of the more simple (:use x). And does refer all support exclude?
So can I do

(:require x :refer :all :exclude [a b c])?


> I agree that it is micro-optimization, but this counts too, noticeably
> because it's one of the first things a newcomer is confronted to when
> he starts seriously with the language.

I agree that it's good to simplify things. Confused as to how this
helps.

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
--- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phillip Lord]

It's different, because it doesn't necessarily eval with the ns form.
So, for example, nrepl.el has an "eval ns form" command. This would not
work with a use form.

Gary Trakhman  writes:

> You could also do (use 'clojure.test) below the ns form.  One thing that
> generally annoys me with 'ns' is that people feel it's some magical thing
> that has to be in the head of every file, like java imports, but it's
> really just a macro.
>
> It just goes to show that conventions are important.
>
> Curiously, and off-topic, why does core.clj have an 'ns' form and then
> proceeds to define the ns macro?
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Phillip Lord > wrote:
>
>> Laurent PETIT  writes:
>> > (:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c])
>> > (:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all)
>>
>> The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it
>> with "and" and "not".
>>
>> > This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to
>> > remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all)
>> > somewhere else, etc.
>>
>> And cause frustration for people who find typing
>>
>> (:require clojure.test :refer :all)
>>
>> when they used to type
>>
>> (:use clojure.test)
>>
>> To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an
>> implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration
>> to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things
>> simpler to me.
>>
>>
>> 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
>> ---
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 

-- 
Phillip Lord,   Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827
Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk
School of Computing Science,
http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
Room 914 Claremont Tower,   skype: russet_apples
Newcastle University,   twitter: phillord
NE1 7RU 

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Max Gonzih]

Totally agree. :use is anti-pattern since :require :refer :all can do the 
same. If you have :use in ns macro and want to make :refer :all visible 
just put it at the end of ns macro, separated b empty line from other 
:require clauses. Having 2 ways of doing so simple thing as requiring code 
is misleading IMHO.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:50:50 PM UTC+3, Greg Slepak wrote:
>
> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could be 
> mistaken. 
>
> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>
>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>  
>
> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, but 
> it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>
> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>
> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> that's not possible. :-\ 
>
> Thoughts? 
>
> Thanks, 
> Greg 
>
> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
>
> -- 
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> with the NSA. 
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Ryan Stradling]

+1 on Phil's "proposal"
"My assumption from our discussion would be that a warning would be added 
in a near release when :use was detected in the ns macro, and that it would 
be removed for Clojure 2.0 when backwards-incompatible changes are OK."


Thanks
Ryan


On Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:07:53 PM UTC-4, Laurent PETIT wrote:
>
> 2013/7/25 Phillip Lord >: 
> > Laurent PETIT > writes: 
> >> (:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c]) 
> >> (:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all) 
> > 
> > The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it 
> > with "and" and "not". 
>
> Except nobody complains about "or", "and" or "not" ;-) 
>
> > 
> >> This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to 
> >> remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all) 
> >> somewhere else, etc. 
> > 
> > And cause frustration for people who find typing 
> > 
> > (:require clojure.test :refer :all) 
> > 
> > when they used to type 
> > 
> > (:use clojure.test) 
>
> Code is read more often than written. 
> Clojure makes default choices "easy", and non default choices "harder" 
> for a reason: to guide people. 
>
> It's like the mantra "if you find it hard to write, you may be doing 
> it wrong (though it's still possible to do)". 
>
> Also, for the REPL, there will still be the (use 'clojure.tests) call 
> that you can use in your REPL bootstrapping code. 
>
> > To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an 
> > implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration 
> > to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things 
> > simpler to me. 
>
> I don't think I'm confused, AFAIC: I'm not even thinking from the 
> implementation perspective, but from the consumer perspective. 
> It's also psychological: if you remove :use, even at the cost of 
> keeping :refer :all, that's one less top-level 'ns directive to 
> remember. 
>
>
> I agree that it is micro-optimization, but this counts too, noticeably 
> because it's one of the first things a newcomer is confronted to when 
> he starts seriously with the language. 
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Laurent PETIT]

2013/7/25 Phillip Lord :
> Laurent PETIT  writes:
>> (:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c])
>> (:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all)
>
> The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it
> with "and" and "not".

Except nobody complains about "or", "and" or "not" ;-)

>
>> This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to
>> remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all)
>> somewhere else, etc.
>
> And cause frustration for people who find typing
>
> (:require clojure.test :refer :all)
>
> when they used to type
>
> (:use clojure.test)

Code is read more often than written.
Clojure makes default choices "easy", and non default choices "harder"
for a reason: to guide people.

It's like the mantra "if you find it hard to write, you may be doing
it wrong (though it's still possible to do)".

Also, for the REPL, there will still be the (use 'clojure.tests) call
that you can use in your REPL bootstrapping code.

> To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an
> implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration
> to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things
> simpler to me.

I don't think I'm confused, AFAIC: I'm not even thinking from the
implementation perspective, but from the consumer perspective.
It's also psychological: if you remove :use, even at the cost of
keeping :refer :all, that's one less top-level 'ns directive to
remember.


I agree that it is micro-optimization, but this counts too, noticeably
because it's one of the first things a newcomer is confronted to when
he starts seriously with the language.

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Steven Degutis]

I think that's a good thing. I like to think of (ns) like a magical thing
that has to be at the head of every file. It gives me consistency and
predictability. It lets me not have to think. I almost wish it were just
some magical required thing.

-Steven


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Gary Trakhman wrote:

> You could also do (use 'clojure.test) below the ns form.  One thing that
> generally annoys me with 'ns' is that people feel it's some magical thing
> that has to be in the head of every file, like java imports, but it's
> really just a macro.
>
> It just goes to show that conventions are important.
>
> Curiously, and off-topic, why does core.clj have an 'ns' form and then
> proceeds to define the ns macro?
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Phillip Lord <
> phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Laurent PETIT  writes:
>> > (:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c])
>> > (:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all)
>>
>> The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it
>> with "and" and "not".
>>
>> > This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to
>> > remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all)
>> > somewhere else, etc.
>>
>> And cause frustration for people who find typing
>>
>> (:require clojure.test :refer :all)
>>
>> when they used to type
>>
>> (:use clojure.test)
>>
>> To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an
>> implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration
>> to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things
>> simpler to me.
>>
>>
>> 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
>> ---
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>  --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Nicola Mometto]

Gary Trakhman writes:

> You could also do (use 'clojure.test) below the ns form.  One thing that
> generally annoys me with 'ns' is that people feel it's some magical thing
> that has to be in the head of every file, like java imports, but it's
> really just a macro.
>
> It just goes to show that conventions are important.
>
> Curiously, and off-topic, why does core.clj have an 'ns' form and then
> proceeds to define the ns macro?

The ns form used when loading core.clj the first time is bootNamespace
from clojure.lang.RT

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Phillip Lord > wrote:
>
>> Laurent PETIT  writes:
>> > (:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c])
>> > (:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all)
>>
>> The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it
>> with "and" and "not".
>>
>> > This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to
>> > remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all)
>> > somewhere else, etc.
>>
>> And cause frustration for people who find typing
>>
>> (:require clojure.test :refer :all)
>>
>> when they used to type
>>
>> (:use clojure.test)
>>
>> To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an
>> implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration
>> to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things
>> simpler to me.
>>
>>
>> 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
>> ---
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Gary Trakhman]

You could also do (use 'clojure.test) below the ns form.  One thing that
generally annoys me with 'ns' is that people feel it's some magical thing
that has to be in the head of every file, like java imports, but it's
really just a macro.

It just goes to show that conventions are important.

Curiously, and off-topic, why does core.clj have an 'ns' form and then
proceeds to define the ns macro?


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Phillip Lord  wrote:

> Laurent PETIT  writes:
> > (:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c])
> > (:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all)
>
> The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it
> with "and" and "not".
>
> > This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to
> > remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all)
> > somewhere else, etc.
>
> And cause frustration for people who find typing
>
> (:require clojure.test :refer :all)
>
> when they used to type
>
> (:use clojure.test)
>
> To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an
> implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration
> to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things
> simpler to me.
>
>
> 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
> ---
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phillip Lord]

Laurent PETIT  writes:
> (:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c])
> (:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all)

The same logic could suggest we remove "or" because we can express it
with "and" and "not". 

> This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to
> remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all)
> somewhere else, etc.

And cause frustration for people who find typing

(:require clojure.test :refer :all) 

when they used to type

(:use clojure.test)

To me, the discussion seems to be confused; I understand why making an
implementation simpler is important. But removing a simple declaration
to replace it with a more complex one doesn't seem to make things
simpler to me.


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
--- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Moritz Ulrich]

Philippe Guillebert writes:

> Hi list,
>
> Just a thought, I usually limit my usage of (:use) to DSL-like functions,
> like for instance cascalog :
>
>   (?<- (stdout) [?a ?b] (generator :> ?a ?b))
>
> Without a use, or (:require :refer :all), this would become very
> cumbersome to read :
>
>   (cascalog/?<- (cascalog/stdout) [?a ?b] (generator :> ?a ?b))
>
> The same applies to SQL DSLs like korma.
>
> So, IMHO there are cases where (:use) simplifies things.
>
> -- 
>
> Philippe Guillebert
>
> --

Just use (:require [foo.bar.cascalog :refer :all]).


-- 
Moritz Ulrich

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Mikera]

On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 19:17:02 UTC+1, Jozef Wagner wrote:

> +1, :use is IMO an antipattern. 
>
> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use like 
> 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>

Hmmm perhaps I'm guilty of this.

But I find code much more readable when it isn't full of aliases and I 
assume many other readers do too. Aliases IMHO add noise that distracts 
from the logic that you are trying to express.

Personally, it has never particularly bothered me which namespace a 
function is from while reading a blog post. I might need to know at some 
point in the future, but by then I'll actually be coding in an editor or a 
REPL, and then my editor/REPL will tell me.


-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Mikera]

On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 16:50:50 UTC+1, Greg Slepak wrote:

> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could be 
> mistaken. 
>
> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>
>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>  
>
> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, but 
> it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>
> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>
> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> that's not possible. :-\ 
>
> Thoughts? 
>
> Thanks, 
> Greg 
>

I don't think :use should be deprecated. Reasons:
- It's already out there in a lot of production code (most important 
reason!)
- It's a convenient feature: it saves typing out :require [ :refer 
:all]. Not that this matters much in ns declarations, but it would annoy me 
when :use was perfectly functional for this case.
- It's consistent with "use", which is a very helpful short command for 
setting up a REPL session quickly. And saving typing definitely *does* 
matter in REPL sessions.
- There's no technical/logical problem with it (it's just a simple 
composition of require + refer)
- I personally find it a helpful pattern : often I want an entire namespace 
available, and I don't want to be manually requiring specific functions 
every time I need something new from the namespace. That's just pointless 
boilerplate to maintain.

I guess removing it would be a slight simplification to the 
already-complicated ns syntax, but to me that is vastly outweighed by the 
above.

If people want to write code-style tools that auto-convert :use into 
equivalent :require clauses then that is obviously fine. I wouldn't use 
such tools myself, but I'm all for people having flexibility to determine 
their own coding style.

But let's not get into the habit of making breaking changes that remove 
useful features without very good reasons.
 

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Laurent PETIT]

2013/7/25 Philippe Guillebert :
> Hi list,
>
> Just a thought, I usually limit my usage of (:use) to DSL-like functions,
> like for instance cascalog :
>
>   (?<- (stdout) [?a ?b] (generator :> ?a ?b))
>
>
>
> Without a use, or (:require :refer :all), this would become very cumbersome
> to read :
>
>   (cascalog/?<- (cascalog/stdout) [?a ?b] (generator :> ?a ?b))
>
>
>
> The same applies to SQL DSLs like korma.
>
> So, IMHO there are cases where (:use) simplifies things.

Again, it's not about getting rid of (:use) functionality, but rather
let everything be declared through (:require), and deprecating the use
of :use

(:use foo :only [a b c]) will become (:require foo :refer [a b c])
(:use foo) will become (:require foo :refer :all)

This will save lots of time and frustration among people trying to
remember why (:use :only) somewhere, why (:require :refer :all)
somewhere else, etc.

This is, IMHO, and it seems that Phil & other agree with that, the
simplest thing that has a chance to work, and maximizes cost/benefit
ratio.

>
>
>
> --
>
> Philippe Guillebert
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Mikera]

On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 21:55:12 UTC+1, Sean Corfield wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Wolfson > 
> wrote: 
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen 
> > > 
>
> > wrote: 
> >> It complects require and refer ;-) 
> > How so? 
>
> Because use = require + refer (essentially). 
>

That's more like "composing" rather than"complecting" IMHO.

Composing is perfectly good practice: once you've made things "simple" 
(require and refer) then it's perfectly legitimate to compose them again in 
order to make things "easy" for users (use). Clojure does this all over the 
place in the name of user convenience (e.g. empty? = not + seq ).

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Philippe Guillebert]

Hi list,

Just a thought, I usually limit my usage of (:use) to DSL-like functions,
like for instance cascalog :

  (?<- (stdout) [?a ?b] (generator :> ?a ?b))

Without a use, or (:require :refer :all), this would become very
cumbersome to read :

  (cascalog/?<- (cascalog/stdout) [?a ?b] (generator :> ?a ?b))

The same applies to SQL DSLs like korma.

So, IMHO there are cases where (:use) simplifies things.

-- 

Philippe Guillebert

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Cedric Greevey]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Phil Hagelberg  wrote:

> My assumption from our discussion would be that a warning would be added
> in a near release when :use was detected in the ns macro, and that it would
> be removed for Clojure 2.0 when backwards-incompatible changes are OK.
>

You mean, the backwards-incompatible changes between Clojure 1.2 and
Clojure 1.3 (ex: (factorial 100) blowing up with ArithmeticException in the
latter but not the former) were *not* OK? :)

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

Too much is the same as not enough.

People can choose to which extend they want to hang themselves, how thick the 
rope they "use" should be and the height from which they will throw themselves 
to 
insure a fast and painless deliverance, hopefully by breaking their neck 
as fast as possible :)

There is significant risk to get hit by a car if you cross on foot a highway 
yet in some
countries people do this daily. Why bother about it ? You could preach about
safety for years in these countries without seeing a noticeable change.

Live and let die...

Personal tastes are just that... personal tastes.

Context should prevail over any dogma == pragmatism.

Luc P.

> Imo, as soon as you have to maintain other peoples' code that heavily uses
> naked use, require starts to look a whole lot nicer.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Lee Spector wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:45 PM, dennis zhuang wrote:
> > > I am using ':use' for my own namespaces.I know it's discouraged, but if
> > i can control my own code,why not? Compiler can give me warnings and i
> > process all warnings carefully.
> >
> > I agree. But I do now see that it's really just about as good, and better
> > for other reasons, to use :require :refer :all instead.
> >
> > However, if the language then starts hassling me about using :require
> > :refer :all then that will really rain on my parade. I don't want to have
> > to jump through hoops to get different parts of my projects to see each
> > other. Clojure already requires more of this than I'd prefer -- e.g. no way
> > to require a whole subdirectory with a wildcard (and I understand this is
> > unlikely to happen) -- and it'd be a drag to have to maintain lists of
> > every function name everywhere.
> >
> >  -Lee
> >
> > --
> > --
> > 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/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
--
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Alex Baranosky]

Imo, as soon as you have to maintain other peoples' code that heavily uses
naked use, require starts to look a whole lot nicer.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Lee Spector wrote:

>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:45 PM, dennis zhuang wrote:
> > I am using ':use' for my own namespaces.I know it's discouraged, but if
> i can control my own code,why not? Compiler can give me warnings and i
> process all warnings carefully.
>
> I agree. But I do now see that it's really just about as good, and better
> for other reasons, to use :require :refer :all instead.
>
> However, if the language then starts hassling me about using :require
> :refer :all then that will really rain on my parade. I don't want to have
> to jump through hoops to get different parts of my projects to see each
> other. Clojure already requires more of this than I'd prefer -- e.g. no way
> to require a whole subdirectory with a wildcard (and I understand this is
> unlikely to happen) -- and it'd be a drag to have to maintain lists of
> every function name everywhere.
>
>  -Lee
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Lee Spector]

On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:45 PM, dennis zhuang wrote:
> I am using ':use' for my own namespaces.I know it's discouraged, but if i can 
> control my own code,why not? Compiler can give me warnings and i process all 
> warnings carefully.

I agree. But I do now see that it's really just about as good, and better for 
other reasons, to use :require :refer :all instead.

However, if the language then starts hassling me about using :require :refer 
:all then that will really rain on my parade. I don't want to have to jump 
through hoops to get different parts of my projects to see each other. Clojure 
already requires more of this than I'd prefer -- e.g. no way to require a whole 
subdirectory with a wildcard (and I understand this is unlikely to happen) -- 
and it'd be a drag to have to maintain lists of every function name everywhere.

 -Lee

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

This is quite decent.

Luc


> I can confirm that the point of adding :refer support to :require was to 
> deprecate :use; I suggested this to Rich at the 2011 Conj when he mentioned 
> the ns macro is too complicated, and he agreed it would be a good idea to 
> enhance :require so that it would make :use unnecessary in order to reduce 
> conceptual overhead. I submitted a patch, and it was applied for 1.4.0.
> 
> As far as I recall, this discussion was only around :use clauses in the ns 
> macro. I think the clojure.core/use function is still very useful in the 
> repl for things like tracing and pprint and don't foresee it going anywhere.
> 
> My assumption from our discussion would be that a warning would be added in 
> a near release when :use was detected in the ns macro, and that it would be 
> removed for Clojure 2.0 when backwards-incompatible changes are OK. But 
> that's just my own guess; I don't know if Rich has any plans to do this.
> 
> -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
> --- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
--
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phil Hagelberg]

I can confirm that the point of adding :refer support to :require was to 
deprecate :use; I suggested this to Rich at the 2011 Conj when he mentioned 
the ns macro is too complicated, and he agreed it would be a good idea to 
enhance :require so that it would make :use unnecessary in order to reduce 
conceptual overhead. I submitted a patch, and it was applied for 1.4.0.

As far as I recall, this discussion was only around :use clauses in the ns 
macro. I think the clojure.core/use function is still very useful in the 
repl for things like tracing and pprint and don't foresee it going anywhere.

My assumption from our discussion would be that a warning would be added in 
a near release when :use was detected in the ns macro, and that it would be 
removed for Clojure 2.0 when backwards-incompatible changes are OK. But 
that's just my own guess; I don't know if Rich has any plans to do this.

-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
--- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[dennis zhuang]

I am using ':use' for my own namespaces.I know it's discouraged, but if i
can control my own code,why not? Compiler can give me warnings and i
process all warnings carefully.



2013/7/25 Steven Degutis 

> If our votes count for anything, then I'd like to add +1 for getting rid
> of :use, and strongly discouraging :refer :all.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Alex Baranosky <
> alexander.barano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for scary compiler deprecation warning for 1.6.0, then removing :use
>> in the 1.7.0 release.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Softaddicts > > wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree, when I use tracing fns and other useful REPL tools,
>>> I like to have them included without having to prefix them with an alias.
>>>
>>> It's not a hack  it's a feature and you are free to use it or not.
>>> If code writers do not care about code readers it's a choice, maybe bad
>>> but
>>> that decision is not yours to take. It's theirs in their own context.
>>>
>>> Now this thread has slowly shifted to "can we streamline how we express
>>> this
>>> feature" to "lets forbid this feature to be used". If ends up creating
>>> such
>>> "policies" enforced by the language, it's the wrong route.
>>>
>>> My answer to such proposals is a definite "no". This a red line to me
>>> that should
>>> not be crossed.
>>>
>>> Luc P.
>>>
>>>
>>> > > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
>>> > like 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>>> >
>>> > Agree.
>>> > Code is read much more often than it is written, so omitting a few
>>> > character is not effective time-saving.
>>> > I also don't like :refer :all.
>>> > I think it should be considered hack rather than official feature.
>>> >
>>> > On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:17:02 AM UTC+9, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
>>> > >
>>> > > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They
>>> :use like
>>> > > 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>>> > >
>>> > > JW
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I
>>> could
>>> > >> be mistaken.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure
>>> has too
>>> > >> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various
>>> difference,
>>> > >> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that
>>> :use
>>> > >> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by
>>> deprecating
>>> > >> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse
>>> because it
>>> > >> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including
>>> files.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive
>>> for
>>> > >> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason
>>> why
>>> > >> that's not possible. :-\
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thoughts?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thanks,
>>> > >> Greg
>>> > >>
>>> > >> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere
>>> apologies.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> --
>>> > >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>> sharing
>>> > >> with the NSA.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > --
>>> > 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/groups/opt_out.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> --
>>> Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> 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
>

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Steven Degutis]

If our votes count for anything, then I'd like to add +1 for getting rid of
:use, and strongly discouraging :refer :all.


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Alex Baranosky <
alexander.barano...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for scary compiler deprecation warning for 1.6.0, then removing :use in
> the 1.7.0 release.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Softaddicts 
> wrote:
>
>> I disagree, when I use tracing fns and other useful REPL tools,
>> I like to have them included without having to prefix them with an alias.
>>
>> It's not a hack  it's a feature and you are free to use it or not.
>> If code writers do not care about code readers it's a choice, maybe bad
>> but
>> that decision is not yours to take. It's theirs in their own context.
>>
>> Now this thread has slowly shifted to "can we streamline how we express
>> this
>> feature" to "lets forbid this feature to be used". If ends up creating
>> such
>> "policies" enforced by the language, it's the wrong route.
>>
>> My answer to such proposals is a definite "no". This a red line to me
>> that should
>> not be crossed.
>>
>> Luc P.
>>
>>
>> > > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
>> > like 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>> >
>> > Agree.
>> > Code is read much more often than it is written, so omitting a few
>> > character is not effective time-saving.
>> > I also don't like :refer :all.
>> > I think it should be considered hack rather than official feature.
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:17:02 AM UTC+9, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
>> > >
>> > > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
>> like
>> > > 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>> > >
>> > > JW
>> > >
>> > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I
>> could
>> > >> be mistaken.
>> > >>
>> > >> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure
>> has too
>> > >> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>> > >>
>> > >> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various
>> difference,
>> > >> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>> > >>
>> > >> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that
>> :use
>> > >> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by
>> deprecating
>> > >> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse
>> because it
>> > >> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>> > >>
>> > >> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>> > >> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
>> > >> that's not possible. :-\
>> > >>
>> > >> Thoughts?
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> Greg
>> > >>
>> > >> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere
>> apologies.
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>> sharing
>> > >> with the NSA.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > 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/groups/opt_out.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>  --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this g

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Alex Baranosky]

If anyone needs help removing all their uses, Slamhound (
https://github.com/technomancy/slamhound) does a decent, though not
perfect, job of automating this.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Alex Baranosky <
alexander.barano...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for scary compiler deprecation warning for 1.6.0, then removing :use in
> the 1.7.0 release.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Softaddicts 
> wrote:
>
>> I disagree, when I use tracing fns and other useful REPL tools,
>> I like to have them included without having to prefix them with an alias.
>>
>> It's not a hack  it's a feature and you are free to use it or not.
>> If code writers do not care about code readers it's a choice, maybe bad
>> but
>> that decision is not yours to take. It's theirs in their own context.
>>
>> Now this thread has slowly shifted to "can we streamline how we express
>> this
>> feature" to "lets forbid this feature to be used". If ends up creating
>> such
>> "policies" enforced by the language, it's the wrong route.
>>
>> My answer to such proposals is a definite "no". This a red line to me
>> that should
>> not be crossed.
>>
>> Luc P.
>>
>>
>> > > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
>> > like 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>> >
>> > Agree.
>> > Code is read much more often than it is written, so omitting a few
>> > character is not effective time-saving.
>> > I also don't like :refer :all.
>> > I think it should be considered hack rather than official feature.
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:17:02 AM UTC+9, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
>> > >
>> > > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
>> like
>> > > 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>> > >
>> > > JW
>> > >
>> > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I
>> could
>> > >> be mistaken.
>> > >>
>> > >> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure
>> has too
>> > >> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>> > >>
>> > >> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various
>> difference,
>> > >> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>> > >>
>> > >> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that
>> :use
>> > >> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by
>> deprecating
>> > >> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse
>> because it
>> > >> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>> > >>
>> > >> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>> > >> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
>> > >> that's not possible. :-\
>> > >>
>> > >> Thoughts?
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> Greg
>> > >>
>> > >> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere
>> apologies.
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>> sharing
>> > >> with the NSA.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > 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/groups/opt_out.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clo

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Alex Baranosky]

+1 for scary compiler deprecation warning for 1.6.0, then removing :use in
the 1.7.0 release.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Softaddicts wrote:

> I disagree, when I use tracing fns and other useful REPL tools,
> I like to have them included without having to prefix them with an alias.
>
> It's not a hack  it's a feature and you are free to use it or not.
> If code writers do not care about code readers it's a choice, maybe bad but
> that decision is not yours to take. It's theirs in their own context.
>
> Now this thread has slowly shifted to "can we streamline how we express
> this
> feature" to "lets forbid this feature to be used". If ends up creating such
> "policies" enforced by the language, it's the wrong route.
>
> My answer to such proposals is a definite "no". This a red line to me that
> should
> not be crossed.
>
> Luc P.
>
>
> > > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
> > like 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
> >
> > Agree.
> > Code is read much more often than it is written, so omitting a few
> > character is not effective time-saving.
> > I also don't like :refer :all.
> > I think it should be considered hack rather than official feature.
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:17:02 AM UTC+9, Jozef Wagner wrote:
> > >
> > > +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
> > >
> > > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
> like
> > > 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
> > >
> > > JW
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I
> could
> > >> be mistaken.
> > >>
> > >> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has
> too
> > >> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
> > >>
> > >> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
> > >> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
> > >>
> > >> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that
> :use
> > >> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by
> deprecating
> > >> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because
> it
> > >> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
> > >>
> > >> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
> > >> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
> > >> that's not possible. :-\
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Greg
> > >>
> > >> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere
> apologies.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
> sharing
> > >> with the NSA.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > --
> > 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/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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 Go

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

I disagree, when I use tracing fns and other useful REPL tools,
I like to have them included without having to prefix them with an alias.

It's not a hack  it's a feature and you are free to use it or not.
If code writers do not care about code readers it's a choice, maybe bad but
that decision is not yours to take. It's theirs in their own context.

Now this thread has slowly shifted to "can we streamline how we express this 
feature" to "lets forbid this feature to be used". If ends up creating such 
"policies" enforced by the language, it's the wrong route.

My answer to such proposals is a definite "no". This a red line to me that 
should
not be crossed.

Luc P.


> > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use 
> like 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
> 
> Agree.
> Code is read much more often than it is written, so omitting a few 
> character is not effective time-saving.
> I also don't like :refer :all.
> I think it should be considered hack rather than official feature.
> 
> On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:17:02 AM UTC+9, Jozef Wagner wrote:
> >
> > +1, :use is IMO an antipattern. 
> >
> > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use like 
> > 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
> >
> > JW
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
> >>
> >> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could 
> >> be mistaken. 
> >>
> >> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> >> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
> >>
> >>
> >> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
> >>  
> >>
> >> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, 
> >> but it also acknowledges their complexity. 
> >>
> >> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> >> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by 
> >> deprecating 
> >> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> >> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
> >>
> >> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> >> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> >> that's not possible. :-\ 
> >>
> >> Thoughts? 
> >>
> >> Thanks, 
> >> Greg 
> >>
> >> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> >> with the NSA. 
> >>
> >>
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
--
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Lee Spector]

On Jul 24, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> You (and to some extent me) can easily play with both forms.
> But why both forms ? That's curse of knowledge in action, because this
> will make no sense at all for newcomers, and there's no good reason
> for having both, except historical ones.

Ah -- that I get. I hereby retract my grumbling :-).

 -Lee

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Takahiro Hozumi]

> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use 
like 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)

Agree.
Code is read much more often than it is written, so omitting a few 
character is not effective time-saving.
I also don't like :refer :all.
I think it should be considered hack rather than official feature.

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:17:02 AM UTC+9, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>
> +1, :use is IMO an antipattern. 
>
> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use like 
> 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>
> JW
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>>
>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could 
>> be mistaken. 
>>
>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
>> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>>
>>
>> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>  
>>
>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, 
>> but it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>>
>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>>
>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
>> that's not possible. :-\ 
>>
>> Thoughts? 
>>
>> Thanks, 
>> Greg 
>>
>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
>>
>> -- 
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
>> with the NSA. 
>>
>>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Laurent PETIT]

2013/7/24 Lee Spector :

> I don't really see why it's helpful to anyone to make me and other :use users 
> do this.

Lee, you were in the past really brilliant at showing me whre I
couldn't see, anymore, how difficult to grasp some Counterclockwise
features were.
This is what is called "curse of knowledge", I guess.

Having both :use and :require :refer :all falls under this definition,
I guess. You (and to some extent me) can easily play with both forms.
But why both forms ? That's curse of knowledge in action, because this
will make no sense at all for newcomers, and there's no good reason
for having both, except historical ones.

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Phillip Lord]

I use 'use' yes.

Take, for instance, this code. It uses my own library to generate a
series of logical statements (about pizza's -- there is a reason, daft
though it sounds). 

https://github.com/phillord/tawny-pizza/blob/master/src/pizza/pizza.clj

It isn't until around the 300th line that I first use any of the
clojure.core functions (ignoring the 'ns' directive which obviously
comes first). Quite often when I use this library, I have to use
refer-clojure to switch the implicit clojure.core use off, because it
gets in the way; I would do the same thing with java.lang if I could but
as far as I can tell those symbols are there regardless of what I do.

I would defend this usage of use. I do not want to namespace qualify the
tawny.owl library; why should I do this when I have hundreds of calls to
this library and about 5 to clojure.core?

I'm happy for you to tell me why I am wrong on this. From this thread, I
understand I could achieve the same thing with :require and more typing;
this is not the point; pulling in one namespace into another sometimes
makes sense.

Phil



Gary Trakhman  writes:

> We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
> github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
> issue a warning with use.
>
> Does anyone actually like 'use'?
>
> Require is always more evident.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>
>> +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
>>
>> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use like
>> 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>>
>> JW
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could
>>> be mistaken.
>>>
>>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too
>>> many ways of including/importing/**referencing/requiring/using things:
>>>
>>> http://blog.8thlight.com/**colin-jones/2010/12/05/**
>>> clojure-libs-and-namespaces-**require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>>
>>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
>>> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>>>
>>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use
>>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating
>>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it
>>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>>>
>>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
>>> that's not possible. :-\
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing
>>> with the NSA.
>>>
>>>  --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 

-- 
Phillip Lord,   Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827
Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk
School of Computing Science,
http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
Room 914 Claremont Tower,   skype: russet_apples
Newcastle University,   twitter: phillord
NE1 7RU 

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Lee Spector]

On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:40 AM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
> 
> For that use-case, you can always use something like (:require the-ns
> :refer :all).

Thanks for the clarity BG.

I guess if/when it becomes necessary I'll convert all of my (:use the-ns) to 
(:require the-ns :use :all), although I don't really see why it's helpful to 
anyone to make me and other :use users do this.

 -Lee

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[David Powell]

I usually :use clojure.pprint and clojure.repl.  Nobody was hurt.

For everything else, I use :require/as.

-- 
Dave



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:

> We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
> github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
> issue a warning with use.
>
> Does anyone actually like 'use'?
>
> Require is always more evident.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>
>> +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
>>
>> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
>> like 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>>
>> JW
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could
>>> be mistaken.
>>>
>>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has
>>> too many ways of including/importing/**referencing/requiring/using
>>> things:
>>>
>>> http://blog.8thlight.com/**colin-jones/2010/12/05/**
>>> clojure-libs-and-namespaces-**require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>>
>>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
>>> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>>>
>>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use
>>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating
>>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it
>>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>>>
>>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
>>> that's not possible. :-\
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>> sharing with the NSA.
>>>
>>>  --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>  --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Michael Klishin]

2013/7/24 Ye He 

> But you can't force people not to use :use without :only, and the tool I
> mentioned will replace that kind of misuses.


I'd start by adding a scary warning to the compiler first,
and then remove support for :use in a couple of versions.
-- 
MK

http://github.com/michaelklishin
http://twitter.com/michaelklishin

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Ye He]

Sorry, It's a typo. What I mean is it can be replaced. But you can't force 
people not to use :use without :only, and the tool I mentioned will replace 
that kind of misuses.
-- 
Regards,
Ye He

On 24 July 2013 at 4:46:44 PM, Michael Klishin (michael.s.klis...@gmail.com) 
wrote:


2013/7/24 Ye He 
Well, obviously :use can't be replaced by (require :refer).

Are you sure? require with :refer :all does exactly what :use does as far as I 
know.
 
According to DRY, I strongly agree the deprecation of :use. But that doesn't 
mean interpreter shouldn't support it right now since we have legacy code base. 
However, we could come to an agreement to less use of :use.

That's what "deprecate" means.
--  
MK

http://github.com/michaelklishin
http://twitter.com/michaelklishin
--  
--  
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 a topic in the Google 
Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/i2VzAlT6oqM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Michael Klishin]

2013/7/24 Ye He 

> Well, obviously :use can't be replaced by (require :refer).


Are you sure? require with :refer :all does exactly what :use does as far
as I know.


> According to DRY, I strongly agree the deprecation of :use. But that
> doesn't mean interpreter shouldn't support it right now since we have
> legacy code base. However, we could come to an agreement to less use of
> :use.


That's what "deprecate" means.
-- 
MK

http://github.com/michaelklishin
http://twitter.com/michaelklishin

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Baishampayan Ghose]

Lee,

For that use-case, you can always use something like (:require the-ns
:refer :all).

Regards,
BG

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Lee Spector  wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:
>
>> Yea, I have a single namespace with project-specific common utilities which 
>> I refer to as u/some-util-function.  For me, it's a bit scary to have 
>> implicit symbols in scope.  A typo can make a local binding refer to 
>> something that might not exist in production, or at least not what's 
>> intended. Conversely, I don't want extra code in my project that has nothing 
>> to do with the project.  Seems useful to enforce a separation of the 
>> artifact from the tools that made it, more-so for a lib that other things 
>> depend on than a production app.
>>
>> The 'user' namespace can cover the use-case of convenience functions?
>>
>> Or, you can add those symbols dynamically at run-time when you need to with 
>> something like:
>> https://github.com/flatland/useful/blob/develop/src/flatland/useful/ns.clj#L26
>>
>> or some aggregated (require ..) calls.
>>
>
> I'm sure I'm coming from a minority perspective on this, but for the kind of 
> work I do it's often more important to be able to quickly sketch out and test 
> ideas, without any ceremony about which functions come from where, than it is 
> to ensure safety in a "production" environment which is really just me 
> running it right now.
>
> In fact I'd sometimes like to go the other way and use everything in a whole 
> directory subtree, or even to get rid of "using" altogether and have the 
> runtime system find the function wherever it can (within reason :-) and let 
> me know if it can't or if there's a conflict.
>
> I do understand that there are a great many programming contexts in which it 
> would be foolish and dangerous to manage references so loosely and implicitly 
> and dynamically. In fact it's a bad idea in some of my work too, so I'm 
> slightly more disciplined than this some of the time.
>
> But my point is just that different users will have different priorities, and 
> from where I sit, at least, it'd be nice to keep :use.
>
>  -Lee
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>



-- 
Baishampayan Ghose
b.ghose at 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
--- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Ye He]

Well, obviously :use can't be replaced by (require :refer). According to 
DRY, I strongly agree the deprecation of :use. But that doesn't mean 
interpreter shouldn't support it right now since we have legacy code base. 
However, we could come to an agreement to less use of :use. It's trivial to 
obey the rule with the help of some automation tools like Slamhound 
https://github.com/technomancy/slamhound which generates namespace import 
for you (of course, without :use). So why bother to use :use? My own 
experience when encountering the situation that I have to guess where a 
function belongs to is that I run Slamhound once and get a better ns 
declaration, then if I'm not allowed to change the code base, I revert it 
back.

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:50:50 AM UTC+10, Greg Slepak wrote:
>
> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could be 
> mistaken. 
>
> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>
>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>  
>
> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, but 
> it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>
> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>
> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> that's not possible. :-\ 
>
> Thoughts? 
>
> Thanks, 
> Greg 
>
> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
>
> -- 
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> with the NSA. 
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[John Gabriele]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:50:50 AM UTC-4, Greg Slepak wrote:
>
> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could be 
> mistaken. 
>
> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>
>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>  
>
> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, but 
> it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>
> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>
> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> that's not possible. :-\ 
>
> Thoughts? 
>
>
I find that use of `:use` makes code more difficult to read.

Names from clojure.core are written without the namespace; everything else 
I expect to see a namespace in front to provide context.

Yes, I also write dates like -MM-DD. :)

-- John

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Sean Corfield]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ben Wolfson  wrote:
> If that's all that's required for one thing to complect two others,
> clojure's rife with the stuff. if-let complects if and let. Destructuring
> assignment complects assignment and getting values from a data structure (as
> the macroexpansion of (let [[a b] x]) demonstrates.

Those examples provide an overall simplification for common
constructs. As the 'use' docstring says, it is "Like 'require, but
also refers to each lib's namespace using clojure.core/refer." so it
explicitly combines two already somewhat complex operations.

When we added :refer to 'require' we also complected things but we
improved expressiveness and we allowed the overall 'ns' construct to
be more uniform and consistent so I think, on balance, that was a win
(and I certainly like having one construct - :require - in my ns
declarations rather than a mix of :use and :require). We probably
should have taken that opportunity to deprecate :use at the same time
but as I recall, :refer was added very late in the cycle and arguing
over deprecating :use would have detracted from the discussion of the
utility of adding :refer to :require in the first place.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
-- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Stefan Kamphausen]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:13:11 PM UTC+2, Ben wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Sean Corfield 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Wolfson > 
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen 
>> > 
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> It complects require and refer ;-)
>> > How so?
>>
>> Because use = require + refer (essentially).
>>
>
> If that's all that's required for one thing to complect two others, 
> clojure's rife with the stuff. if-let complects if and let. Destructuring 
> assignment complects assignment and getting values from a data structure 
> (as the macroexpansion of (let [[a b] x]) demonstrates. split-with 
> complects take-while and drop-while. let complects lambda abstraction and 
> function application. Etc. I had assumed that "a complects b and c" on the 
> one hand meant more than "a can be expressed using b and c" and on the 
> other was a criticism.
>


you're right.  I did not think a lot before writing the above.  Please, 
don't take it too seriously.


Kind regards,
Stefan

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Laurent PETIT]

2013/7/23 Softaddicts :
> Maybe we need an simpler alternative to the ns macro without all
> these complex options :)
>
> With a short name like ns-stop-banging-your-head-on-the-wall :)

would violate the "rule" use often => short name ;-)

>
> Or the reverse, ns-make-your-life-more-chaotic...

Deal :-D

>
> :)
>
> Luc P.
>
>> It's not as if *some* (cough cough) parts of Clojure were'nt
>> opinionated, right? :-)
>>
>> Having in the (ns) macro the possibility to use :use, to use :require,
>> to use :refer-clojure, to use :require-macros can be daunting, and not
>> only for newcomers!
>>
>> And not to mention that the vast majority of the docstring for ns
>> talks about :gen-class defaults !
>>
>> And all this choice for only historical reasons is not opinionated
>> enough for my taste!
>>
>> I'd be willing too, to deprecate a couple things:
>>
>> :use :all in favor of :require :all
>> :use :only in favor of :require :only
>>
>> Let's be opinionated! :-D
>>
>> I think that's the only subset that has a chance to pass without
>> having to gather a commitee at the next Clojure-conj ;-)
>>
>>
>> 2013/7/23 Softaddicts :
>> > None of what has been said so far makes me believe that our usage of
>> > "use" is "bad". It's like a rope, you can use it for useful purposes or 
>> > you can
>> > hang yourself. You use it at your own taste and will.
>> >
>> > Lack of discipline does not constitute for me a reason to trash a feature 
>> > as scarce
>> > as his usefulness seems to be.
>> >
>> > :refer :all can be used as badly as :use.
>> >
>> > I am not convinced that removing a facade and leaving the feature available
>> > through a backdoor makes life better for anyone. :use is easily searchable 
>> > and
>> > quite obvious. Not sure about spotting :refer :all in 15 name space require
>> > clauses.
>> >
>> > You will simply end up say "do not use refer all" instead
>> > of warning against using use.
>> >
>> > Gee, What a lot of "use"s in this thread :)
>> >
>> > Luc P.
>> >
>> >> One of the main issues I have faced with :use is, understanding a
>> >> non-trivial codebase becomes very difficult and almost always requires
>> >> Emacs Meta-dot.
>> >>
>> >> I'd vote for deprecating :use.
>> >>
>> >> Shantanu
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --
>> >> 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/groups/opt_out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > --
>> > Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > 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/groups/opt_out.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
>
> --
> --
> 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 unsubscr

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

Maybe we need an simpler alternative to the ns macro without all
these complex options :)

With a short name like ns-stop-banging-your-head-on-the-wall :)

Or the reverse, ns-make-your-life-more-chaotic...

:)

Luc P.

> It's not as if *some* (cough cough) parts of Clojure were'nt
> opinionated, right? :-)
> 
> Having in the (ns) macro the possibility to use :use, to use :require,
> to use :refer-clojure, to use :require-macros can be daunting, and not
> only for newcomers!
> 
> And not to mention that the vast majority of the docstring for ns
> talks about :gen-class defaults !
> 
> And all this choice for only historical reasons is not opinionated
> enough for my taste!
> 
> I'd be willing too, to deprecate a couple things:
> 
> :use :all in favor of :require :all
> :use :only in favor of :require :only
> 
> Let's be opinionated! :-D
> 
> I think that's the only subset that has a chance to pass without
> having to gather a commitee at the next Clojure-conj ;-)
> 
> 
> 2013/7/23 Softaddicts :
> > None of what has been said so far makes me believe that our usage of
> > "use" is "bad". It's like a rope, you can use it for useful purposes or you 
> > can
> > hang yourself. You use it at your own taste and will.
> >
> > Lack of discipline does not constitute for me a reason to trash a feature 
> > as scarce
> > as his usefulness seems to be.
> >
> > :refer :all can be used as badly as :use.
> >
> > I am not convinced that removing a facade and leaving the feature available
> > through a backdoor makes life better for anyone. :use is easily searchable 
> > and
> > quite obvious. Not sure about spotting :refer :all in 15 name space require
> > clauses.
> >
> > You will simply end up say "do not use refer all" instead
> > of warning against using use.
> >
> > Gee, What a lot of "use"s in this thread :)
> >
> > Luc P.
> >
> >> One of the main issues I have faced with :use is, understanding a
> >> non-trivial codebase becomes very difficult and almost always requires
> >> Emacs Meta-dot.
> >>
> >> I'd vote for deprecating :use.
> >>
> >> Shantanu
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> 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/groups/opt_out.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
> >
> > --
> > --
> > 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/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
--
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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 Gro

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Ben Wolfson]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Wolfson  wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen 
> > wrote:
> >> It complects require and refer ;-)
> > How so?
>
> Because use = require + refer (essentially).
>

If that's all that's required for one thing to complect two others,
clojure's rife with the stuff. if-let complects if and let. Destructuring
assignment complects assignment and getting values from a data structure
(as the macroexpansion of (let [[a b] x]) demonstrates. split-with
complects take-while and drop-while. let complects lambda abstraction and
function application. Etc. I had assumed that "a complects b and c" on the
one hand meant more than "a can be expressed using b and c" and on the
other was a criticism.

-- 
Ben Wolfson
"Human kind has used its intelligence to vary the flavour of drinks, which
may be sweet, aromatic, fermented or spirit-based. ... Family and social
life also offer numerous other occasions to consume drinks for pleasure."
[Larousse, "Drink" entry]

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Laurent PETIT]

It's not as if *some* (cough cough) parts of Clojure were'nt
opinionated, right? :-)

Having in the (ns) macro the possibility to use :use, to use :require,
to use :refer-clojure, to use :require-macros can be daunting, and not
only for newcomers!

And not to mention that the vast majority of the docstring for ns
talks about :gen-class defaults !

And all this choice for only historical reasons is not opinionated
enough for my taste!

I'd be willing too, to deprecate a couple things:

:use :all in favor of :require :all
:use :only in favor of :require :only

Let's be opinionated! :-D

I think that's the only subset that has a chance to pass without
having to gather a commitee at the next Clojure-conj ;-)


2013/7/23 Softaddicts :
> None of what has been said so far makes me believe that our usage of
> "use" is "bad". It's like a rope, you can use it for useful purposes or you 
> can
> hang yourself. You use it at your own taste and will.
>
> Lack of discipline does not constitute for me a reason to trash a feature as 
> scarce
> as his usefulness seems to be.
>
> :refer :all can be used as badly as :use.
>
> I am not convinced that removing a facade and leaving the feature available
> through a backdoor makes life better for anyone. :use is easily searchable and
> quite obvious. Not sure about spotting :refer :all in 15 name space require
> clauses.
>
> You will simply end up say "do not use refer all" instead
> of warning against using use.
>
> Gee, What a lot of "use"s in this thread :)
>
> Luc P.
>
>> One of the main issues I have faced with :use is, understanding a
>> non-trivial codebase becomes very difficult and almost always requires
>> Emacs Meta-dot.
>>
>> I'd vote for deprecating :use.
>>
>> Shantanu
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Lee Spector]

On Jul 23, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:
> 
> For instance, we have defrecords now, no one's going to reach for defstruct 
> because records are documented and promoted more thoroughly.  

FWIW I'm even a contrarian on defstruct :-! although I've switched to records 
anyway on account of speed.


On Jul 23, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> 
> Because use = require + refer (essentially).


Is using :refer :all semantically identical to using :use? Or does 
"essentially" have a gap here?
 
If it's identical then I guess I don't care much either way, although I'd 
prefer to stick with the shorter thing that's already in my code.

 -Lee


-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Sean Corfield]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Wolfson  wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen 
> wrote:
>> It complects require and refer ;-)
> How so?

Because use = require + refer (essentially).
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
-- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Ben Wolfson]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen wrote:

>
> It complects require and refer ;-)
>

How so?

-- 
Ben Wolfson
"Human kind has used its intelligence to vary the flavour of drinks, which
may be sweet, aromatic, fermented or spirit-based. ... Family and social
life also offer numerous other occasions to consume drinks for pleasure."
[Larousse, "Drink" entry]

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Stefan Kamphausen]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:42:39 PM UTC+2, Shantanu Kumar wrote:
>
> One of the main issues I have faced with :use is, understanding a 
> non-trivial codebase becomes very difficult and almost always requires 
> Emacs Meta-dot.


which is particularly annoying when you read code on a blog (as mentioned 
by the OP) or on paper 
 

>
> I'd vote for deprecating :use.
>
> inc

It complects require and refer ;-)

stefan 

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Gary Trakhman]

I think what we're proposing is not about removing the capability to do
'use'.  That will remain, it's clojure after all.  You could also implement
it yourself easily enough.  The issue is whether it's worthwhile to have it
as a core function, without some kind of notice that better things exist.

For instance, we have defrecords now, no one's going to reach for defstruct
because records are documented and promoted more thoroughly.  But 'use' is
more pervasive, and also 'easier'.  As the language grows, it'll be good
for newcomers to have less things to think about, so deprecation is a way
to counter bad inertia.

The damage of 'use' is also less visible on the small scale, so that's why
it's hard to make an argument about it.  :require is proportionately more
verbose for an effect.  Use's verbosity is inversely proportional to its
effect, so it takes extra effort to limit its effects.

A limited scope by default is what I mean by 'good', for similar reasons
that clojure goes with 'immutability by default'.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Lee Spector  wrote:

>
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:
>
> > Yea, I have a single namespace with project-specific common utilities
> which I refer to as u/some-util-function.  For me, it's a bit scary to have
> implicit symbols in scope.  A typo can make a local binding refer to
> something that might not exist in production, or at least not what's
> intended. Conversely, I don't want extra code in my project that has
> nothing to do with the project.  Seems useful to enforce a separation of
> the artifact from the tools that made it, more-so for a lib that other
> things depend on than a production app.
> >
> > The 'user' namespace can cover the use-case of convenience functions?
> >
> > Or, you can add those symbols dynamically at run-time when you need to
> with something like:
> >
> https://github.com/flatland/useful/blob/develop/src/flatland/useful/ns.clj#L26
> >
> > or some aggregated (require ..) calls.
> >
>
> I'm sure I'm coming from a minority perspective on this, but for the kind
> of work I do it's often more important to be able to quickly sketch out and
> test ideas, without any ceremony about which functions come from where,
> than it is to ensure safety in a "production" environment which is really
> just me running it right now.
>
> In fact I'd sometimes like to go the other way and use everything in a
> whole directory subtree, or even to get rid of "using" altogether and have
> the runtime system find the function wherever it can (within reason :-) and
> let me know if it can't or if there's a conflict.
>
> I do understand that there are a great many programming contexts in which
> it would be foolish and dangerous to manage references so loosely and
> implicitly and dynamically. In fact it's a bad idea in some of my work too,
> so I'm slightly more disciplined than this some of the time.
>
> But my point is just that different users will have different priorities,
> and from where I sit, at least, it'd be nice to keep :use.
>
>  -Lee
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

None of what has been said so far makes me believe that our usage of
"use" is "bad". It's like a rope, you can use it for useful purposes or you can
hang yourself. You use it at your own taste and will.

Lack of discipline does not constitute for me a reason to trash a feature as 
scarce
as his usefulness seems to be. 

:refer :all can be used as badly as :use.

I am not convinced that removing a facade and leaving the feature available
through a backdoor makes life better for anyone. :use is easily searchable and
quite obvious. Not sure about spotting :refer :all in 15 name space require
clauses.

You will simply end up say "do not use refer all" instead
of warning against using use.

Gee, What a lot of "use"s in this thread :)

Luc P.

> One of the main issues I have faced with :use is, understanding a 
> non-trivial codebase becomes very difficult and almost always requires 
> Emacs Meta-dot.
> 
> I'd vote for deprecating :use.
> 
> Shantanu
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
--
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Sean Corfield]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Lee Spector  wrote:
> I'm sure I'm coming from a minority perspective on this, but for the kind of 
> work I do it's often more important to be able to quickly sketch out and test 
> ideas, without any ceremony about which functions come from where, than it is 
> to ensure safety in a "production" environment which is really just me 
> running it right now.
>
> In fact I'd sometimes like to go the other way and use everything in a whole 
> directory subtree, or even to get rid of "using" altogether and have the 
> runtime system find the function wherever it can (within reason :-) and let 
> me know if it can't or if there's a conflict.
>
> I do understand that there are a great many programming contexts in which it 
> would be foolish and dangerous to manage references so loosely and implicitly 
> and dynamically. In fact it's a bad idea in some of my work too, so I'm 
> slightly more disciplined than this some of the time.
>
> But my point is just that different users will have different priorities, and 
> from where I sit, at least, it'd be nice to keep :use.

Well, you can always use (require '[some.ns :refer :all]) instead of
(use 'some.ns) but I recognize the former is a lot more typing.

Certainly in the REPL, working in the user ns, I can see a good
argument for (use 'some.ns) while you're evolving a solution, but I
think :use in the ns macro should be deprecated (i.e., :use should at
some point go away but perhaps the use function should stay for
REPL-based exploration?).

Tightening up the ns macro so it issues warning for undocumented
constructs would also be a good idea:

(ns some.ns
  (require [foo.bar :as f])) ;; supported and works, but really should
be :require instead!
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
-- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Cedric Greevey]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:

> What's problematic about it is that it's slightly easier to do the wrong
> thing.  It seems insignificant, but 98% of times you use use, it's going to
> be wrong.  Also, 'use only' means I have to change my calling NS twice in
> different parts of the emacs buffer any time I change a function name in
> the called namespace.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Cedric Greevey wrote:
>
>> :use...:only doesn't strike me as especially problematic, since it
>> documents the specific symbols it's importing and from where.
>>
>
Is it "wrong" 98% of the times you use ":use...:only"?

And if you change the name of the function "fnname" where it's defined,
yeah you'll have to change "fnname" wherever it's used as well, whether
those uses say "fnname" or "mylib.core/fnname" or "m/fnname" or even
"(:require [mylib.core :refer :rename {fnname othername}])".

Of course, the latter suggests the question of whether it's "wrong" to use
:require ... :refer :only as well. :)

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Lee Spector]

On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:

> Yea, I have a single namespace with project-specific common utilities which I 
> refer to as u/some-util-function.  For me, it's a bit scary to have implicit 
> symbols in scope.  A typo can make a local binding refer to something that 
> might not exist in production, or at least not what's intended. Conversely, I 
> don't want extra code in my project that has nothing to do with the project.  
> Seems useful to enforce a separation of the artifact from the tools that made 
> it, more-so for a lib that other things depend on than a production app.
> 
> The 'user' namespace can cover the use-case of convenience functions?
> 
> Or, you can add those symbols dynamically at run-time when you need to with 
> something like: 
> https://github.com/flatland/useful/blob/develop/src/flatland/useful/ns.clj#L26
> 
> or some aggregated (require ..) calls.
> 

I'm sure I'm coming from a minority perspective on this, but for the kind of 
work I do it's often more important to be able to quickly sketch out and test 
ideas, without any ceremony about which functions come from where, than it is 
to ensure safety in a "production" environment which is really just me running 
it right now.

In fact I'd sometimes like to go the other way and use everything in a whole 
directory subtree, or even to get rid of "using" altogether and have the 
runtime system find the function wherever it can (within reason :-) and let me 
know if it can't or if there's a conflict.

I do understand that there are a great many programming contexts in which it 
would be foolish and dangerous to manage references so loosely and implicitly 
and dynamically. In fact it's a bad idea in some of my work too, so I'm 
slightly more disciplined than this some of the time.

But my point is just that different users will have different priorities, and 
from where I sit, at least, it'd be nice to keep :use.

 -Lee

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Shantanu Kumar]

One of the main issues I have faced with :use is, understanding a 
non-trivial codebase becomes very difficult and almost always requires 
Emacs Meta-dot.

I'd vote for deprecating :use.

Shantanu

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Gary Trakhman]

What's problematic about it is that it's slightly easier to do the wrong
thing.  It seems insignificant, but 98% of times you use use, it's going to
be wrong.  Also, 'use only' means I have to change my calling NS twice in
different parts of the emacs buffer any time I change a function name in
the called namespace.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Cedric Greevey  wrote:

> :use...:only doesn't strike me as especially problematic, since it
> documents the specific symbols it's importing and from where.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
>
>> We only have :use in a couple of "legacy" tests and two scratch
>> projects. We've switched from :use to :require .. :refer :all for
>> situations where :use used to make sense (primarily in a test ns where
>> we want to just refer in all of the ns being tested). We have a
>> handful of places where we :refer :all elsewhere because the code
>> reads better without ns aliases all over the place and we bring in a
>> lot of functions.
>>
>> Certainly in blogs and documentation, :require .. :as short alias
>> seems a better approach for teaching / explaining things but I'm sure
>> I'm guilty of :use in earlier blog posts about Clojure (... checking
>> ... yup, three blog posts from early 2012 contain :use, mostly with
>> :only, so those should be updated to use :require / :refer instead).
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Gary Trakhman 
>> wrote:
>> > We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
>> > github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
>> > issue a warning with use.
>> >
>> > Does anyone actually like 'use'?
>> >
>> > Require is always more evident.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jozef Wagner 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
>> >>
>> >> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
>> like
>> >> 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>> >>
>> >> JW
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I
>> could
>> >>> be mistaken.
>> >>>
>> >>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has
>> too
>> >>> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>> >>>
>> >>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
>> >>> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>> >>>
>> >>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that
>> :use
>> >>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by
>> deprecating
>> >>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because
>> it
>> >>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>> >>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
>> that's
>> >>> not possible. :-\
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Greg
>> >>>
>> >>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere
>> apologies.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>> sharing
>> >>> with the NSA.
>> >>>
>> >> --
>> >> --
>> >> 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/groups/opt_out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > 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 

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Gary Trakhman]

Yea, I have a single namespace with project-specific common utilities which
I refer to as u/some-util-function.  For me, it's a bit scary to have
implicit symbols in scope.  A typo can make a local binding refer to
something that might not exist in production, or at least not what's
intended. Conversely, I don't want extra code in my project that has
nothing to do with the project.  Seems useful to enforce a separation of
the artifact from the tools that made it, more-so for a lib that other
things depend on than a production app.

The 'user' namespace can cover the use-case of convenience functions?

Or, you can add those symbols dynamically at run-time when you need to with
something like:
https://github.com/flatland/useful/blob/develop/src/flatland/useful/ns.clj#L26

or some aggregated (require ..) calls.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Steven Degutis  wrote:

> For much the same reason, I've been using :require with :as and a
> one-or-two-letter alias, so I can do x/whatever. Generally works well.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Lee Spector wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:
>>
>> > We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
>> github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
>> issue a warning with use.
>> >
>> > Does anyone actually like 'use'?
>> >
>> > Require is always more evident.
>>
>> I like it and I use it regularly, mainly, I guess, when all of the
>> namespaces are my own and I know there are no conflicts. I split things
>> into namespaces to keep the project organized, etc., but I don't want to
>> have to qualify everything everywhere.
>>
>>  -Lee
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>  --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Cedric Greevey]

:use...:only doesn't strike me as especially problematic, since it
documents the specific symbols it's importing and from where.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:

> We only have :use in a couple of "legacy" tests and two scratch
> projects. We've switched from :use to :require .. :refer :all for
> situations where :use used to make sense (primarily in a test ns where
> we want to just refer in all of the ns being tested). We have a
> handful of places where we :refer :all elsewhere because the code
> reads better without ns aliases all over the place and we bring in a
> lot of functions.
>
> Certainly in blogs and documentation, :require .. :as short alias
> seems a better approach for teaching / explaining things but I'm sure
> I'm guilty of :use in earlier blog posts about Clojure (... checking
> ... yup, three blog posts from early 2012 contain :use, mostly with
> :only, so those should be updated to use :require / :refer instead).
>
> Sean
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Gary Trakhman 
> wrote:
> > We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
> > github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
> > issue a warning with use.
> >
> > Does anyone actually like 'use'?
> >
> > Require is always more evident.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jozef Wagner 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
> >>
> >> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use
> like
> >> 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
> >>
> >> JW
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could
> >>> be mistaken.
> >>>
> >>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has
> too
> >>> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
> >>>
> >>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
> >>> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
> >>>
> >>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that
> :use
> >>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by
> deprecating
> >>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because
> it
> >>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
> >>>
> >>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
> >>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
> that's
> >>> not possible. :-\
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
> sharing
> >>> with the NSA.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> 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/groups/opt_out.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > 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/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
> An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
> World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/
>
> "Perfection is the enemy of the good."
> -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)
>
> --
> --
> 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

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Sean Corfield]

We only have :use in a couple of "legacy" tests and two scratch
projects. We've switched from :use to :require .. :refer :all for
situations where :use used to make sense (primarily in a test ns where
we want to just refer in all of the ns being tested). We have a
handful of places where we :refer :all elsewhere because the code
reads better without ns aliases all over the place and we bring in a
lot of functions.

Certainly in blogs and documentation, :require .. :as short alias
seems a better approach for teaching / explaining things but I'm sure
I'm guilty of :use in earlier blog posts about Clojure (... checking
... yup, three blog posts from early 2012 contain :use, mostly with
:only, so those should be updated to use :require / :refer instead).

Sean

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Gary Trakhman  wrote:
> We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
> github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
> issue a warning with use.
>
> Does anyone actually like 'use'?
>
> Require is always more evident.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jozef Wagner 
> wrote:
>>
>> +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
>>
>> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use like
>> 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>>
>> JW
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could
>>> be mistaken.
>>>
>>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too
>>> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>>
>>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
>>> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>>>
>>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use
>>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating
>>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it
>>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>>>
>>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why that's
>>> not possible. :-\
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing
>>> with the NSA.
>>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>



-- 
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
-- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880)

-- 
-- 
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

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Steven Degutis]

For much the same reason, I've been using :require with :as and a
one-or-two-letter alias, so I can do x/whatever. Generally works well.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Lee Spector  wrote:

>
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:
>
> > We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
> github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
> issue a warning with use.
> >
> > Does anyone actually like 'use'?
> >
> > Require is always more evident.
>
> I like it and I use it regularly, mainly, I guess, when all of the
> namespaces are my own and I know there are no conflicts. I split things
> into namespaces to keep the project organized, etc., but I don't want to
> have to qualify everything everywhere.
>
>  -Lee
>
> --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Softaddicts]

We have production code using it.
It's easy to say that it's a bad pattern after the fact.

We have been using it in a disciplined way.
It simplifies our life in the REPL we have some tools we want to see included 
automatically each time we switch to a name space. 

Anything else aside from clojure.core is required using an alias.
This minimized name clashes to zero so far.

This is easily spottable in the ns macro declarations and is not a source of
confusion for us.

We have less manipulations to do in the REPL when attaching to the live app
with these "defaults" included.

I do not mind about the deprecation warning as a first step.
However I would like some breathing space before it gets removed entirely.
It's just another to do on top of the pile of work we have these times...

Luc P.


> We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
> github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
> issue a warning with use.
> 
> Does anyone actually like 'use'?
> 
> Require is always more evident.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jozef Wagner wrote:
> 
> > +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
> >
> > I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use like
> > 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
> >
> > JW
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
> >>
> >> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could
> >> be mistaken.
> >>
> >> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too
> >> many ways of including/importing/**referencing/requiring/using things:
> >>
> >> http://blog.8thlight.com/**colin-jones/2010/12/05/**
> >> clojure-libs-and-namespaces-**require-use-import-and-ns.html
> >>
> >> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
> >> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
> >>
> >> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use
> >> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating
> >> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it
> >> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
> >>
> >> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
> >> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
> >> that's not possible. :-\
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing
> >> with the NSA.
> >>
> >>  --
> > --
> > 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/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 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/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> 
--
Softaddicts sent by ibisMail from my ipad!

-- 
-- 
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 h

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Lee Spector]

On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:

> We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post github 
> issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to issue a 
> warning with use.  
> 
> Does anyone actually like 'use'? 
> 
> Require is always more evident.

I like it and I use it regularly, mainly, I guess, when all of the namespaces 
are my own and I know there are no conflicts. I split things into namespaces to 
keep the project organized, etc., but I don't want to have to qualify 
everything everywhere.

 -Lee

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Gary Trakhman]

We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
github issues to the projects of interest, and redefine the ns macro to
issue a warning with use.

Does anyone actually like 'use'?

Require is always more evident.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Jozef Wagner wrote:

> +1, :use is IMO an antipattern.
>
> I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use like
> 3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)
>
> JW
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>>
>> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could
>> be mistaken.
>>
>> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too
>> many ways of including/importing/**referencing/requiring/using things:
>>
>> http://blog.8thlight.com/**colin-jones/2010/12/05/**
>> clojure-libs-and-namespaces-**require-use-import-and-ns.html
>>
>> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference,
>> but it also acknowledges their complexity.
>>
>> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use
>> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating
>> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it
>> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files.
>>
>> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for
>> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why
>> that's not possible. :-\
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>>
>> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies.
>>
>> --
>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing
>> with the NSA.
>>
>>  --
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Can we please deprecate the :use directive ?

[Jozef Wagner]

+1, :use is IMO an antipattern. 

I hate it mainly in blogs, where they explain some new API. They :use like 
3 namespaces and you have to guess which fn is from which ns :)

JW

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:50:50 PM UTC+2, Greg Slepak wrote:
>
> I think I read somewhere that :use is no longer encouraged, but I could be 
> mistaken. 
>
> From what I've read, it seems like most people agree that Clojure has too 
> many ways of including/importing/referencing/requiring/using things: 
>
>
> http://blog.8thlight.com/colin-jones/2010/12/05/clojure-libs-and-namespaces-require-use-import-and-ns.html
>  
>
> The above gives a very nice explanation of all the various difference, but 
> it also acknowledges their complexity. 
>
> Since :use uses :require, and since :require can do everything that :use 
> can, can we simplify Clojure programming a bit for newcomers by deprecating 
> the use of :use? The situation in ClojureScript is even worse because it 
> adds :require-macros on top of all the other ways of including files. 
>
> Ideally, it would be awesome if there was just a single directive for 
> everything, but perhaps there's some complicated low-level reason why 
> that's not possible. :-\ 
>
> Thoughts? 
>
> Thanks, 
> Greg 
>
> P.S. If this has already been brought up you have my sincere apologies. 
>
> -- 
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing 
> with the NSA. 
>
>

-- 
-- 
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/groups/opt_out.