Or maybe: &next ??? :-))))
Frantisek On Feb 18, 5:27 pm, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:04 am, Chouser <chou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Rob <rob.nikan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm wondering if I found a bug. I have the latest source from svn > > > (r1291). > > > > user=> (bean 1) > > > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Wrong number of args passed to: > > > core$bean--5161$fn--5179$thisfn > > > You sure did. The conversion to lazy-seq code appears to introduce a > > paren typo and an incorrect nil pun. Patch attached. > > Patch applied, svn 1293 - thanks! > > > Rich, I think it'd be pretty useful to have as you mentioned in IRC a > > variant of & destructuring that provided an unforced lazy-seq. It > > seems pretty common to want, in the body of a lazy-seq, a destructured > > 'first' but an unforced 'rest'. This is already the third or fourth > > time I've wanted to be able to do something like: > > > (fn thisfn [plseq] > > (lazy-seq > > (when-let [[pkey &rest etc] plseq] > > (cons (new clojure.lang.MapEntry pkey (v pkey)) > > (thisfn etc))))) > > Yes, sure. It just comes down to the name: > > &rest > && > > others? > > Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
