On Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 3:52:50 PM UTC+2, Nikita Beloglazov wrote: > I would argue that it is a bad style in every case. In Quil > (http://github.com/quil/quil) it is pretty handy to :refer :all of quil.core > and use functions from it without need to prefix every call with q/ > > But given that ClojureScript not going to support it we'll think about how to > deal with it when migrating Quil to ClojureScript. > > Nikita > > On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:54:07 PM UTC+1, David Nolen wrote: > > It's just bad style and as far I know the only reason it hasn't changed in > > Clojure is because the core team is very adamant about preserving backwards > > compatibility when possible. The conspicuous lack of naked :use in > > ClojureScript was intentional. > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Roman Scherer <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Apart from using "bad style" when requiring all symbols from > > > > another namespace, are there any technical reasons this is not > > > > supported in ClojureScript? Just curious ... > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 1:49:32 PM UTC+2, David Nolen wrote: > > > > > No plans to implement that feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Максим Карандашов <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I know that currently we don't cat use (ns some.ns (:require [some.dep > > > :refer :all])). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But wiki says > > > (https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Differences-from-Clojure#namespaces): > > > "You must *currently* use the ns form only with the following caveats..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any plans to implement this features or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > > > your first post. > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "ClojureScript" group. > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > email to [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > > your first post. > > > > --- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "ClojureScript" group. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
Agreed. If it is considered bad style I guess it should be removed from Clojure examples like in core.logic as well. Also Clojure should emit a warning that :use is discouraged. However I also disagree on the premise that it is bad style in all cases. While likely to be overused by beginners it is useful in certain cases as yours and many other libraries before yours have uncovered. -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
