On Feb 22, 3:14 pm, Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Mirko <mirko.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In my practice, almost every project (no matter how short it is)
> > starts by writing raw code, and then, when I see what is being done
> > often, replacing parts with macros that simplify the code and make it
> > easier to read.
>
> But wouldn't it be nice if those commonly used macros were already a
> part of the language so you didn't have to write them?
>
> --
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Object Computing, Inc.
Well yes, for commonly used macros. So, dotimes is one. But how
many do you want? Or with how many different calling options?
print-times was a simple example. Now, if print-times starts
appearing in many files and projects, you put it into your
initialization file. Finally, you can start an add-on library to
closure with common extension that people can download.
What I learned and what I strive for is to define the language for the
particular problem at hand. It is just me, but I like the challenge,
and also the code is so much more readable. And I like readable code
when I revisit it six months down the line.
Mirko
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
