zlacker

>>nathan+(OP)
Could I politely suggest more Clojure-like naming? `deframaop -> defop`. You can always `(require 'com.rpl.rama :as rama)` and invoke with `(rama/defop ...)` for the desired level of clarity and improved readability.

>>waffle+Ji1
I named it like this so there would be consistency between deframaop and deframafn. Shortening deframafn like you suggest would be "deffn" or "deffunction", which would be very confusing. And I'd rather have deframaop + deframafn than defop + deframafn.

>>nathan+6k1
Why not rama/defop and rama/defn?

>>knubie+bo1
That would make it so you can't do "use" on com.rpl.rama. Since Rama is a full language, doing a "use" on the namespace is generally preferred as otherwise you would have to write "rama/" everywhere, which is irritating.

I also don't like overloading "defn" with something that's completely different. Also, a deframafn is more than a Clojure defn since it can emit to other output streams.