e wrote: > I think it's simpler just to have a consistent syntax, personally. > Otherwise, why not python or haskell style syntax for the language? because > code is data. So now there's a special case where the data is backwards.
Consistent syntax is nice, but not very useful if it gets in the way of readability. Fortunately, Clojure has a consistent method for designing arbitrary new syntax when needed. -> is not a "special case". It's a well-documented macro intended to make some kinds of expressions more readable. The non-macro syntax is "simpler", yes, but not always easier to read, which is the reason why -> exists. -- Jarkko --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
