Struggling a bit. Moving the keywords to the end of the vector rather
than the beginning? This reduces complexity?
Phil
Greg g...@kinostudios.com writes:
Looking at it again, we don't even need an explicit :require anymore:
(ns one.fresh-server
optional doc string goes here
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
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,
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
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 ko...@sietsma.com wrote:
Agree that :use should be deprecated, mostly
Anthony Grimes disciplera...@gmail.com 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
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
On Monday, 5 August 2013 11:35:22 UTC+1, Phillip Lord wrote:
Anthony Grimes discip...@gmail.com javascript: 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
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
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
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
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
Greg g...@kinostudios.com 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
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,
* 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
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]]
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
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 discip...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 fat...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi Ye,
or at least *Do Not Use *those standard names*.*
The following guide suggests the opposite.
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
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
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 gary.trakh...@gmail.com writes:
You could also do (use 'clojure.test) below the ns form. One thing that
generally
Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com 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.
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
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
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
On Tuesday, 23 July 2013 21:55:12 UTC+1, Sean Corfield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Wolfson wol...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen
ska...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It complects require and refer ;-)
How so?
2013/7/25 Philippe Guillebert philippe.guilleb...@gmail.com:
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
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:
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
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/?-
Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com 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
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.
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
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
2013/7/25 Phillip Lord phillip.l...@newcastle.ac.uk:
Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com 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
+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
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
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 lspec...@hampshire.edu wrote:
On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:
Yea, I have a single namespace with project-specific common
2013/7/24 Ye He htt5...@gmail.com
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
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
2013/7/24 Ye He htt5...@gmail.com
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
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 gary.trakh...@gmail.comwrote:
We should scour clojuresphere for uses of 'use' and automatically post
github issues to the
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
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
2013/7/24 Lee Spector lspec...@hampshire.edu:
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
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
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.
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
+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 lprefonta...@softaddicts.cawrote:
I disagree, when I use tracing fns and other useful REPL tools,
I like to have them included without having to prefix
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
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
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 sbdegu...@gmail.com
If our votes count for anything, then I'd like to add +1 for getting rid
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
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
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,
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 lspec...@hampshire.eduwrote:
On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:45 PM, dennis zhuang wrote:
I am using ':use' for my own
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 :)
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Phil Hagelberg p...@hagelb.org 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.
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:
+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
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
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
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
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 lspec...@hampshire.edu wrote:
On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Gary Trakhman wrote:
We should scour
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
: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 seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
We only have :use in a couple of legacy tests and two scratch
projects. We've switched
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.
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
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
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
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Gary Trakhman gary.trakh...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Lee Spector lspec...@hampshire.edu 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
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
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.
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
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen ska2...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Wolfson wolf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen ska2...@gmail.com
wrote:
It complects require and refer ;-)
How so?
Because use = require + refer (essentially).
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View --
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
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
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Wolfson wolf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen ska2...@gmail.com
wrote:
It complects require and refer ;-)
How so?
Because use = require
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,
2013/7/23 Softaddicts lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca:
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,
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:13:11 PM UTC+2, Ben wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Sean Corfield
seanco...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Wolfson wol...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stefan Kamphausen
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ben Wolfson wolf...@gmail.com 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
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
91 matches
Mail list logo
