Giters

plumatic / plumbing

Prismatic's Clojure(Script) utility belt

Geek Repo:Geek Repo

Github PK Tool:Github PK Tool

How are you dealing with Clojure 1.7's clojure.core/update?

robert-stuttaford opened this issue · comments

commented

We require plumbing in a uniform manner:

(ns ...
  (:require [plumbing.core :refer :all]))

Using Clojure 1.7-alpha4, we now get a ton of warnings like this:

WARNING: update already refers to: #'clojure.core/update in namespace: one.of.our.namespaces, being replaced by: #'plumbing.core/update.

Do you anticipate altering plumbing to rename your update, or do we need to explicitly exclude clojure's update like this?

(ns ...
  (:refer-clojure :exclude [update])
  (:require [plumbing.core :refer :all]))

FWIW, we don't actually use plumbing.core/update. I just want the warnings to go away :-)

commented

We're not on 1.7 so haven't run into this yet, but I think the ultimate
plan is to remove update entirely since the semantics are the same as
what's in 1.7. That's a breaking change though, so I'm not sure what the
best way forward is. One option would be to conditionally define it only
in pre-1.7 -- this would still break people referring to it with :require :as when they move to 1.7 but seems like maybe the best compromise. Any
other ideas?

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Robert Stuttaford <notifications@github.com

wrote:

We require plumbing in a uniform manner:

(ns ...
(:require [plumbing.core :refer :all]))

Using Clojure 1.7-alpha4, we now get a ton of warnings like this:

WARNING: update already refers to: #'clojure.core/update in namespace:
one.of.our.namespaces, being replaced by: #'plumbing.core/update.

Do you anticipate altering plumbing to rename your update, or do we need
to explicitly exclude clojure's update like this?

(ns ...
(:refer-clojure :exclude [update])
(:require [plumbing.core :refer :all]))

FWIW, we don't actually use plumbing.core/update. I just want the
warnings to go away :-)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#76.

commented

That sounds like the best plan, @w01fe. Means that folks on 1.6- are unaffected. I like it!

commented

Cool. Pull request welcome, or otherwise I'll probably get to it over
break. Thanks!

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Robert Stuttaford <notifications@github.com

wrote:

That sounds like the best plan, @w01fe https://github.com/w01fe. Means
that folks on 1.6- are unaffected. I like it!

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#76 (comment).

commented

Fixed by #78 (thanks again!)