André Thieme wrote: > On 8 Nov., 17:47, Phlex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Robert Pfeiffer wrote: >> >>> Is there a benefit in implementing this as a macro instead of a >>> function? The function version would be very simple: >>> >>> (defn returning [returnval & body] >>> returnval) >>> >> Well no, the forms are evaluated. It's usefull for side effects. >> > > In what way would the forms *not* get evaluated when using > Roberts function returning? > Ah I guess you're right, either way it would be nice to have the functionality available in clojure. There must be some reason for CL to have it as a macro (call-argument-limit perhaps ?) Also there's not function call overhead with a macro. Though that should not be a concern. > Macros are much less often needed in a functional language > which also comes with syntactic suger for (λ [args] ...) in form > of #(...). > ahwell that's a debate... sure you can do much with lambdas. Some would say that's a leaking abstraction. I often implement some functionality as a higher order function, then wrap it around in a macro. Like a do-trie macro around a map-trie function. it's just prettier ! Sacha --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
