mount

tolitius 2016-09-12T02:54:33.000116Z

@kingoftheknoll: yep, as long as the compiler saw the state, mount will pick it up (i.e. compiler will let mount know: here is a var you might be interested in)

tolitius 2016-09-12T02:54:59.000117Z

you can try mount 0.1.11-SNAPSHOT, it logs states as compiler (/mount) sees them

tolitius 2016-09-12T02:55:43.000118Z

i.e. it will show each state as it sees it: https://github.com/tolitius/mount/commit/e34a164c2ef4e7dc0cbe9d86e18ab98f0f66508f

2016-09-12T04:04:09.000119Z

@tolitius: thanks! Does that mean that if defstates A -> B where B depends on A. If I refer B into my user namespace I'm assuming it automatically picks up A? And even if it does do you find that it's just better to be explicit and refer them all?

tolitius 2016-09-12T04:09:07.000121Z

if I understand your question correctly, then yes, dependencies will be brought into your namespace transitively (you can require only B, and, since it depends on A, compiler would have already seen A by the time you get to use B)

tolitius 2016-09-12T04:10:49.000122Z

whether it makes sense to define them all explicitly would depend on where "the action takes place".

tolitius 2016-09-12T04:10:52.000123Z

for example in the namespace with the -main function or in dev playground I tend to require everything explicitly, so I have a better visual when I look at these namespaces.

tolitius 2016-09-12T04:11:09.000124Z

in case of other namespaces I would only require what's needed

tolitius 2016-09-12T04:12:00.000125Z

e.g. would not require A if I don't use it in a namespace